Business

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in UK Politics

      Australia trade deal will deliver minimal benefit to UK economy and poses risks for farmers, say experts

      by

      A trade deal between the UK and Australia will deliver minimal benefit to the UK economy while posing significant risks to UK farmers, industry leaders and trade experts have warned.The government announced an agreement in principal on a pact with Australia on Tuesday. Boris Johnson said that the UK’s first major post-Brexit trade agreement would create “fantastic opportunities” for the UK. However, many of the details have yet to be finalised and farmers fear that the terms mean they will be undercut by cheap imports.Animal welfare campaigners also said the deal would allow low-welfare products such as beef treated with hormones into the UK.The deal will also allow greater freedom for UK nationals aged under 35 to travel freely in Australia.Impact on the economyDavid Henig, UK director of European Centre For International Political Economy, said the deal might not even deliver the 0.02 per cent boost to GDP that the government has estimated and that the true impact could be closer to zero.The government’s forecast is based on “heroic assumptions” which previous trade deals have not come close to achieving, he tweeted, adding that the details announced on Tuesday contain nothing we didn’t already know.”There had to be an announcement as the Australian PM was here. But it doesn’t feel like negotiations are in fact complete.”He also suggested that the UK may have played its hand poorly in negotiations: “Australia got their top asks from the UK – agriculture. The UK didn’t have a top ask of Australia, hence why none is being flagged. If we find one in the future, too late, we already gave them what they wanted.”Sam Lowe, senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform, tweeted that “trade deals don’t do very much for aggregate GDP either positively or negatively” because the main benefits come from reducing tariffs, which are already quite low.’Significant harms’Angus Brendan MacNeil, chair of the Commons International Trade Committee, expressed concerns that the government had ceded too much ground to Australia.“In its rush to reach an initial agreement, I fear the government could sign up to something which brings significant harms as well as benefits. “The views of the entire farming sector especially are no secret now, including those in the devolved nations, who are particularly concerned about being undercut by cheaper meat and dairy produce from ‘down under’.”The government says British farmers will be protected by a cap on tariff-free imports for 15 years, using measures including tariff rate quotas.National Farmers’ Union president Minette Batters called for more information about any provisions on animal welfare and the environment “to ensure our high standards of production are not undermined by the terms of this deal”.She added: “The ultimate test of this trade deal will be whether it contributes to moving farming across the world onto a more sustainable footing, or whether it instead undermines UK farming and merely exports the environmental and animal welfare impact of the food we eat.”Joe Spencer, partner at accountancy firm MHA MacIntyre Hudson described the deal as “unfavourable”.“UK farmers are increasingly being asked to offer protection for the environment, while the government is withdrawing support to them at the same time,” Mr Spencer said.”Unfavourable trade deals – such as this latest one in negotiation with Australia – will only add more pressure to the sector which is working hard to move in one direction while, one might suggest, having the rug pulled out from under it at the same time.“Farmers are right to be wary. Trade deals of the sort the government has negotiated with Australia offer few advantages to the sector and maybe only small benefits to consumers (in terms of lower prices). The sector (and the general public) will be paying close attention to the way these trade deals ensure food safety and livestock welfare standards.”Consumer pricesDowning Street claims the removal of tariffs under the deal says will mean cheaper Australian wine, swimwear and confectionery, “boosting choice for British consumers and saving households up to £34m a year”.Scotch whiskyThe Scotch whisky industry has been touted as one that would see benefits from the trade deal because it will now have tariff-free access into the Australian market.Kate Betts, chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association welcomed the removal of a 5 per cent tariff.”This will help Scotch Whisky distillers continue to expand exports to Australia, which have almost doubled over the last decade, making Australia our eighth largest market by value,” Ms Bettes said. “It’s also important to us that trade with Australia is now tariff-free for Scotch Whisky – our preference is always for tariff-free trade, which enables Scotch Whisky to compete on a level playing field and on the strength of our reputation for quality.”The association is calling for “greater legal protection and tax fairness” for Scotch whisky, which it said would deliver a boost for the industry.Wine and spiritsThe Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said removing import tariffs will save UK wine businesses £16m and support thousands of jobs.The UK exported £27m worth of British gin to Australia last year, which was one of the few markets to continue growing during a year in which exports were heavily hit by the pandemic.UK distillers are expecting to see those exports continue to grow, with an agreement likely to remove the 5 per cent tariff Australia levies on the spirit, WSTA said.Parliamentary scrutinyMPs from all major parties demanded an opportunity to properly scrutinise the deal. In a letter coordinated by campaign group Best for Britain, the MPs warn that “no one wants to see our farming communities in Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland undermined for the sake of a politically expedient trade deal”.The letter calls for Parliament to be given the ability scrutinise the finalised text of the agreement before it is signed and ratified, warning that “the deal must command the support of all four nations of the UK.” It also demands that detailed impact assessments are carried out looking at how the deal will affect regions and nations of the UK and sectors such as farming. More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      Should Billionaires Be Taxed Differently?

      by

      As a columnist for The Washington Post, Megan McArdle works for the Post’s owner, a man named Jeff Bezos. Over the past two decades, McArdle has had numerous other prestigious bosses. She boasts a solid career in high-level journalism, having worked for The Atlantic, Newsweek, The Economist and Bloomberg, among others. Bloomberg View’s executive editor, David Shipley, once called her “an extraordinary writer and thinker.”

      Early on, in 2001, McArdle broke onto the scene as the author of a blog, “Live from the WTC,” at a time when most people were not yet addicted to the internet and few even knew what the word blog meant. Making her mark as a blogger required one of two talents: the ability to come up regularly with remarkable scoops and cutting insights, or developing a shrill, brutally opiniated voice capable of irritating the right class of adversaries and resonating with a crowd of equally opinionated followers. McArdle long ago branded herself a libertarian. That quite naturally helped to define her as the second type of celebrated blogger. She has consistently lived up to that billing, even as an opinion writer for the revered Washington Post.

      ProPublica Reveals the US Is a Tax Haven

      READ MORE

      McArdle has now weighed in on ProPublica’s blockbuster scoop last week concerning the tax returns of the 25 richest Americans. New York Times editor Spencer Bokat-Lindell prudently commented: “Depending on your point of view, it was either one of the most important stories of the year or an invented scandal.” The Times author exposes the significant complications when wishing to address the issue of taxing the super-rich. He coyly conceals his own point of view. 

      In her column in The Washington Post bearing the title, “Think Twice Before Changing the Tax Rules to Soak Billionaires,” McArdle doesn’t hesitate to trumpet her point of view urbi et orbi. “Think twice” of course means: Read my article and stop complaining. She suggests that taxing the rich more would be undemocratic because it would mean treating them differently from other citizens. That would be an injustice. Her jibe, “soak billionaires,” suggests that taxing them would be torture similar to waterboarding.

      Then McArdle offers this: “We talk a lot about rich people ‘paying their fair share,’ but we’re rarely clear on what exactly we mean by that.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Fair share:

      An amount corresponding to the implicit rules of equitability that apply in any society that values solidarity, meaning that no such amount can be determined in a society with an ideological bias against solidarity

      Contextual Note

      McArdle may have been inspired by former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who, to the rhetorical question, “Who is society?” gave this response: “There is no such thing! There are individual men and women.” That means fairness is in the eye of the beholder. It also means all’s fair in love and war… and tax avoidance. In any case, the two ladies appear to share a similar train of thought. In the idea of “fair share,” it isn’t the concept of “fair” that upsets either of the ladies. It’s the idea of “share.” In McArdle’s mind, the noun “share” simply designates a unit of ownership in a corporation’s stock. Society, in this sense, is hardly different from a community of shareholders, some owning many more shares than others.

      The columnist speculates about what it would mean if the wealthy were taxed on the added value of the stocks they own. She imagines a melodramatic scenario in which “they might be forced to sell off stock of a business they spent decades building.” Shares cannot be shared, so they must be sold. That would be downright tragic because the builders might just stop building and then where would society be? But having made her melodramatic point, she doesn’t even try to imagine how such things would play out in the real world. Like Kurtz in Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” she simply invokes “The horror! The horror!”

      McArdle’s shock at the idea of entrepreneurs losing their life’s work makes no sense for two fairly obvious reasons. The first is theoretical, the second pragmatic. In theory, a wealthy person could be forced to sell stock to pay a percentage of capital gains. That person’s share of the company would be correspondingly diminished, but in almost all cases only slightly, since the tax would only represent a percentage of the gain in value. Owning 10% of a company valued at $1.5 billion is better than owning 12% of a company valued at $1 billion. In the long term, having to sell those more shares could end up reducing the person’s future wealth. It would not reduce their current wealth.

      Embed from Getty Images

      But because real billionaires tend to be well advised and own portfolios that allow them a wide range of options, they never make such sacrifices. Whether it is to buy a yacht or pay taxes, they rarely if ever liquefy any assets. They borrow against those assets, which has the added value of reducing their declared income on which they would normally pay taxes.

      For most people, income represents the money they must earn to survive or maintain a lifestyle. Because wealthy owners of businesses decide on their own remuneration, they avoid having a substantial taxable income by living lavishly off money they borrow from a bank and pay back with interest. The interest is the only “penalty” they pay for their prodigality. It is nowhere near what they would pay in taxes. It’s an ideal solution. Banks love lending money to the rich because there is zero risk. The wealthy avoid taxes. Their tax lawyers and accounts earn a decent fee. The society of ordinary taxpayers reaps no benefit other than whatever trickles down from the high profit margins of those who sell yachts and luxury goods.

      McArdle doesn’t want to know about such systemic truth. Instead, she returns to her imaginary vision of a system obsessed by its envy of the rich and intent on invoking the idea of fairness to constrain their freedom. She confesses that, “given a choice between letting billionaires spend fortunes reaching for the stars, or destroying those fortunes so that the rest of us don’t have to look at them, then personally, I’ll take the rockets.”

      Historical Note

      The rockets that Megan McArdle refers to are those that her boss, Jeff Bezos, is building thanks to his astronomic fortune, some of which he has invested in his space venture, Blue Origin. Is it a coincidence that she works for Bezos’ newspaper and that she uncritically assesses his personal indulgences?

      Her previous column, with the title “Why Aren’t We Talking More About UFOs?” clearly advances the interests of Blue Origin. The more concerned Americans are about alien invasions — whether from outer space, China or Russia — the more public money (provided by ordinary taxpayers) will be available to support Blue Origin, a company that is about to receive a gift offered by Congress of $10 billion to colonize the moon, even after losing out in a public bid to fellow billionaire Elon Musk’s venture, SpaceX. 

      McArdle probably thinks of Blue Origin as yet another example “of a business [Jeff Bezos] spent decades building.” His lobbyists have convinced the government to spend billions on it, while Bezos himself skirts his tax obligation. She complains that the argument demanding “‘taxes on untaxed capital gains’ is what you come up with if you just don’t think anyone should have enough money to be able to shoot themselves into space.” The “you” she refers to is ProPublica, which dared to make that case, and anyone else equally feeble-minded enough to begrudge billionaires their private pleasures. 

      Bezos’ ownership of the Post is paying off. When making the decision to buy the paper in 2013, he reasoned: “The Washington Post has an incredibly important role to play in this democracy. There’s no doubt in my mind about that.” Had he waited a year to consider the findings of a Princeton study published in 2014 with the title, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens,” he might have more accurately explained: The Washington Post has an incredibly important role to play in this plutocracy.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      25 corporations marking Pride donated over $10m to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians – study

      by

      June is Pride month, and many US corporations are advertising their support for the LGBTQ+ community. A new study, however, has found that 25 companies otherwise eager to wave the rainbow flag have donated more than $10m to anti-LGBTQ+ federal and state politicians over the past two years.The study, released on Monday by the Popular Information newsletter, found that alongside pronouncements of LGBTQ+ support, corporations including CVS, AT&T, Walmart and Comcast have supported candidates who seek to block or otherwise restrict equal rights based on gender or sexual orientation.Many of the corporations have 100% ratings on the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) 2020 Corporate Equality Index, which measures workplace policies and “public commitment to the LGBTQ community”. The index does not take political donations into account.The study found that CVS, while receiving a perfect HRC score and announcing on Twitter it was “proud to join more than 100 companies that have signed HRC’s Business Statement Opposing Anti-LGBTQ State Legislation”, also supported sponsors of anti-trans legislation in Texas, North Carolina and Tennessee, through its corporate political action committee.In Texas, CVS backed Republican state senators Dawn Buckingham and Bryan Hughes, co-sponsors of SB1646, a bill that would “change the state’s child abuse law” to make it a crime for parents to allow children to receive gender-affirming medical care.The company also backed North Carolina state senator Ralph Hise, primary sponsor of S514, which would ban anyone under 21 receiving gender-affirming treatment and which the Advocate, an LGBTQ+ outlet, called “the most repressive anti-transgender healthcare bill in the nation”.CVS’s $1,000 donation to Hise in August 2020 came four years after huge controversy over an anti-trans “bathroom bill” the senator argued was necessary “to protect the citizens of the state of North Carolina”.CVS has donated $259,000 to 54 members of Congress who received a HRC rating of zero, largely through voting against the Equality Act, over the last two years.Others named in the study include cable giant Comcast, which has donated more than $1m to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians since 2019.A Comcast subsidiary, Xfinity, recently tweeted: “Pride is the love we share. And with Xfinity, it’s Pride all year.” Comcast itself has created “a virtual ‘Pride World’, where we will feature events, Pride floats, Pride flags, and even a Pronoun Guide for employees”.But according to the study by Popular Information, Comcast has also donated more than $1.1m to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians since 2019, including $30,000 to the sponsors of anti-trans legislation in Florida and Texas and $1,095,500 to 149 members of Congress marked zero by HRC.AT&T, which recently said “We can #TURNUPTHELOVE for LGBTQ youth together”, also signed a HRC letter opposing anti-LGBTQ state legislation. But it has also supported sponsors of anti-trans legislation in Arkansas ($12,950), Tennessee ($4,000), North Carolina ($5,000), Texas ($22,500), and Florida ($17,500).Walmart – whose website features a “Pride & Joy” section – has donated at least $442,000 to 121 politicians who received a zero from HRC, according to campaign finance reports.Others mentioned in the study for promoting a perfect score on the Corporate Equality Index and publicising support for LGBTQ+ rights while donating to anti-LGBTQ+ lawmakers include United Health, Deloitte and Wells Fargo, which made a $1,000 donation to the North Carolina state senator Joyce Krawiec, who has shared anti-trans articles on social media.Wells Fargo is a corporate supporter of Heritage of Pride, the non-profit that plans and produces New York City’s Pride events. The group has also been supported by Comcast.Michael Bullock of Weekly Senator, a crowdfunding group that channels donations to Senate candidates supporting progressive causes, said LGBTQ+ organisations supported by corporations that donate to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians should be boycotted.Bullock claimed Heritage of Pride “has over time created a parade in which the main goal is to pimp out queer people and queer culture to corporations to make as much money as possible. It’s crazy that this even needs to be said, but all LGBTQ people should boycott the Heritage of Pride until they make sure none of the sponsors fund anti-gay legislation.”Dan Dimant, a spokesperson for Heritage of Pride, told the Guardian the group makes efforts to prevent “pink-washing”, including guidelines on its website, and “takes great pains to ensure that partnerships meet strict criteria and that all partners are working to further the mission of the organization”.“There is a vetting process, so we make our best effort to avoid some of these conflicts of interest but that said it’s a moving target because companies change over time,” Dimant said.While many companies named in the Popular Information study did not comment, many reaffirmed their commitment to LGBTQ+ rights.General Motors said its political contributions “do not represent an endorsement of the candidate or support for all the issues the candidate supports [and] we will continue to clearly communicate with policymakers GM’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion”.Ford said “contributions by our employee Pac are bipartisan and take into consideration many issues that are important to meeting the needs of our customers, our team and our company”.Google defended its record on supporting “the rights of all LGBTQ people” and said a contribution to a candidate “doesn’t mean that Google agrees with that candidate on every issue. In fact, we may disagree strongly on some issues.” Amazon took a similar position. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in World Politics

      How the Tech Giants Work for the Security State

      by

      The United States proudly believes in its uniqueness as the one nation in this corrupt world that remains dedicated to the freedom of its citizens. That belief is part of the nation’s founding myth. Americans see their nation as representing an ideal, a model for all other nations to emulate. They continue to believe that their government is committed to their own unassailable freedom, even after the increasingly visible stranglehold over all of its institutions by the military-industrial complex, a process already well underway when President Dwight Eisenhower denounced it 60 years ago. 

      The takeover has been confirmed by numerous events, including a series of costly and futile wars in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. Despite the obvious lessons of recent history, Washington’s political class consistently demonstrates its inability to oppose policies that lead to more failed wars or to rein in an ever-expanding military budget. It would be more accurate to call the USA the UCA, the United Complex of America. Militarism in body and spirit defines its unity.

      ProPublica Reveals the US Is a Tax Haven

      READ MORE

      As a corollary of their conviction that their system of government represents an ideal the rest of the world should emulate, Americans believe that all other nations, even their Western allies, have less freedom. The populations of these nations willingly accept being ruled over by invasive governments that exercise unjustified control over their citizens’ lives, limiting their right to the pursuit of happiness.

      After all, every one of them boasts one form or another of the tyrannical practice known as “socialized medicine.” Most of them even have national identity cards, symbols of all-seeing, all-controlling administrations. Those two horrors — socialized medicine and identity cards — define cowardly peoples who have renounced their basic rights (including the right to arm oneself for rebellion), something Americans will always refuse to do.

      In an article detailing the complex relations between tech giants and law enforcement, three New York Times reporters reveal how, in the home of the brave and the land of the free, the citizens deemed to be brave have ended up accepting a truly invasive system they naively believe makes them free. Without having to invent a visibly centralized system of control, their government has perfected its strategies for spying on, managing and when necessary, directly controlling the lives of its citizens.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Thanks to the culture of the consumer society, the methods devised turned out to be simple to put in place. It begins with an immediately acceptable ideological principle that already applies to practically everything in the American way of life. The most powerful government in the world delegates an important part of the task of control to private enterprises. Just as American foreign wars, once prosecuted by a national, conscripted army, have veered toward the logic of mercenary armies, the US government’s surveillance — though clearly present in its vast, centralized intelligence community and security state — relies on private tech companies to provide the direct interface with its citizens. Distracted by the glitz, glamor and freebies offered by successful tech enterprises, the American people fail to recognize how they are being monitored and manipulated. 

      The hyperreal illusion is facilitated by Americans’ belief that because private companies are focused on profit, they, as the customers who enable the firms’ profitability, are in good hands. Profit, they have been taught, is the secret weapon that preserves apolitical virtue. Americans feel they can entrust every aspect of their life to companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon, who have no political agenda other than expanding the boundaries of citizens’ freedom by offering them access to platforms that, in turn, offer them more and more free or discounted goods and services.

      Focusing on the example of Apple, the Times article highlights the kind of ambiguity that exists when politically motivated persons of authority use that authority to subpoena not people, but the data collected by the admittedly greedy but supposedly politically neutral tech companies. Users have nothing to fear because the companies all have policies designed to protect the confidentiality of their customers’ data. It is written into their contracts.

      But in a world where the population has been told terrorism is always lurking in the shadows, law enforcement and national security sometimes need to access that data. They use the law to accomplish their goal. The companies, to respect their contract with users, have the right to refuse. “But more frequently than not,” the article tells us, “the companies comply with law enforcement demands. And that underlines an awkward truth: As their products become more central to people’s lives, the world’s largest tech companies have become surveillance intermediaries and crucial partners to authorities, with the power to arbitrate which requests to honor and which to reject.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Surveillance intermediaries:

      Supposedly uninvolved, neutral bystanders who have been given the task of hoarding the data that can be used, when needed, to restore order or achieve any other ends deemed essential to the security of those in power.

      Contextual Note

      These practices are now being exposed in the courts. According to the understanding Americans have of a democratic system based on the subtle play of “checks and balances,” freedom and justice, even when challenged, will always prevail. Or will they? It is one thing to know how the system was designed. Another is to understand how it works.

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      The Times reporters reveal that “more frequently than not, the companies comply with law enforcement demands.” The number of those requests “has soared in recent years to thousands a week.” Analyzing the statistics, they note that over a six-month period in 2020, for example, Apple challenged 238 demands. That corresponds to 4% of the total. Blind compliance with the government thus occurs 96% of the time. That translates as the same figure for non-compliance with the terms of their own contract with their customers.

      President Joe Biden’s attorney general, Merrick B. Garland, justifies this arrangement, not because it is founded in law but because it is the result of “a set of policies that have existed for decades.” Blame it on tradition. Or rather don’t blame it at all. That is the ransom people pay to their need for security. The article describes the use of “gag orders that authorities placed on the subpoenas.” Apple and Microsoft agreed, under constraint, not to inform those whose information was targeted. “In Apple’s case, a yearlong gag order was renewed three separate times.”

      Historical Note

      In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed to the world that the US spies on its own citizens. The shock of 9/11 put in place a state of permanent paranoia that allowed Americans to accept any measure proposed to protect them from terrorists. All the data that exists about the citizens themselves, most of it now generated and stored by private companies, may play a role in controlling their behavior. It helps the government detect sedition and terrorism. For the companies, it is merely the key to generating profits by understanding and influencing the behavior of consumers.

      In recent years, the media have reported extensively on the social credit system China is currently putting in place. It appears to use invasive technology to produce the equivalent of George Orwell’s Big Brother in “1984.” For that reason, it is anathema to freedom-loving Americans. What the Times article reveals is that, contrary to China, whose government exclusively defines and operates the system, Americans get two surveillance operators for the price of one.

      If an intrusive government is the enemy of the people’s freedom, the Chinese at least have the advantage of knowing who the enemy is. In the US, where the government has set up a central system of what we might call “control of acceptable values” (i.e., values that do not lead toward terrorism), there is a second set of operators: the platforms that organize all the data that may prove useful to the needs of the central surveillance system. The people trust the companies, who are only interested in the cash advantages produced by citizens’ data. But the government is interested in everything else, from basic security to partisan political exploitation.

      Americans traditionally fear “big government,” a Godzilla-like monster that may be surveilling them. That fear is so deeply instilled, they will never notice, let alone fear surveillance intermediaries.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      ProPublica Reveals the US Is a Tax Haven

      by

      This week, ProPublica published a long, detailed article that blew the roof off two burning and intimately related questions currently in the news: wealth inequality and taxation. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Thomas Piketty, Branko Milanovic and numerous pundits in the media have written reams on the topic. Politicians like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have highlighted the issue and made proposals to address the problem. When Sanders suggested during the Democratic presidential primary that “billionaires shouldn’t exist,” the Democratic Party turned to one of the richest billionaires, Michael Bloomberg, counting on his financial clout to prevent the Vermont senator from winning the party’s nomination.

      In the US, people are more easily impressed by wealth itself than by the serious problem that wealth inequality has created. ProPublica’s article may help to change the public’s focus.

      They Are Coming for Us

      READ MORE

      ProPublica exposes the brutal fact that, contrary to the tenets of conservative Republican orthodoxy, the wealthy are the “takers” and people who work for a living, the “makers.” Worse, the taking they do no longer requires much effort. The tax system delivers everything they take away from others directly to their doorstep. Between 2014 and 2018, the 25 richest Americans “paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes.” The article calls it “a staggering sum, but it amounts to a true tax rate of only 3.4%.”

      Among the many details, ProPublica highlights the case of Warren Buffett, signaling “his public stance as an advocate of higher taxes for the rich.” Between 2014 and 2018, “Buffett reported paying $23.7 million in taxes.” But given the increase in his wealth over that period, that impressive sum “works out to a true tax rate of 0.1%, or less than 10 cents for every $100 he added to his wealth.” Who wouldn’t be happy paying taxes at that rate? And for Buffett, it isn’t even on earnings, which for most people permit survival, but on the absolute growth of his net worth.

      The article also cites the case of George Soros, the man who single-handedly broke the Bank of England. “Between 2016 and 2018,” according to a spokesman for the billionaire, “George Soros lost money on his investments, therefore he did not owe federal income taxes in those years.” The same spokesman, ProPublica reports, is quoted as affirming that “Mr. Soros has long supported higher taxes for wealthy Americans.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Support:

      To sit on the sidelines and verbally encourage other people to do things one is disinclined to do or incapable of doing on one’s own

      Contextual Note

      ProPublica has provided the world with a truly enlightening trove of information that sends a clear message. And this is only the beginning. The publication promises in the coming months to “explore how the nation’s wealthiest people — roughly the .001% — exploit the structure of our tax code to avoid the tax burdens borne by ordinary citizens.” Its reporting will certainly serve to clarify a debate that, for many, may have seemed too abstract and too polemical to try to take on board.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The numbers demonstrate the extreme, hyperreal nature of wealth distribution today. When the public learns that, in 2011, Jeff Bezos — who is, on and off, the richest man in the world — “claimed and received a $4,000 tax credit for his children” and that his true tax rate over time is less than 1%, they may begin to take the measure of how the tax system works and to whose benefit.

      The figures, nevertheless, show that between 2006 and 2018, Bezos paid out $1.4 billion, a staggering amount for any ordinary wage-earner to even try to comprehend. But his personal fortune over that time ballooned to reach close to $200 billion today. Has he earned it through his hard work? No, it earns itself. That’s what money does. And thanks to his ability to hire tax advisers and clever accountants, all but crumbs of his wealth stay in his hands, never to pollute (or contribute to improving) the public sphere.

      Historical Note

      ProPublica went to great lengths to gather, verify and publish these carefully guarded tax secrets. Its editors were not surprised when, as Forbes reports, IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig “told lawmakers that internal and external investigators are working to determine whether the data ProPublica used was illegally obtained.” In the land that enshrined free speech as a right (First Amendment) apparently even more fundamental than the right to own an AR-15 (Second Amendment), all speech is legitimate except when it is blown through a whistle.

      This simply means that the act of reporting certain types of scandalous abuse in the public interest is now deemed to violate the republic’s interest. We can expect the US government to spare no expense in its pursuit of the anonymous whistleblower who provided ProPublica with the tax returns it has put on display, whose secrecy is protected by the law.

      This is not a great time for whistleblowers. The cases of Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning have made headlines over the past decade. They all did something that could be interpreted as technically illegal, especially when laws such as the Espionage Act happen to be on the books. But they clearly exposed essential information about how a democracy functions that purports to be “of the people, by the people and for the people.” Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou and Jeffrey Sterling and Reality Winner are among others who were prosecuted by the Obama and Trump administrations for making significant contributions to our understanding of how government manages and sometimes mismanages people’s lives, fortunes and deaths.

      Last week, Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, who worked as a senior adviser at the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, was sentenced to six months in prison for revealing to BuzzFeed News what the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists qualifies as “financial corruption on a global scale.” She was arrested in 2018. Her crime consisted of sharing confidential bank documents with a journalist, an act that sparked “a global investigation into illicit money flows,” which, had she not acted, the public would never have known about.

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      BuzzFeed’s spokesman, Matt Mittenthal, helpfully explained that the resulting “investigation has helped to inspire major reform and legal action in the United States, the E.U., and countries around the world.” In other words, sometimes it is necessary to break the law to make it stronger and more equitable.

      Ben Smith, a New York Times columnist, summed up Edwards’ plight in a tweet: “This woman is going to prison for six months for her role in revealing systemic global financial corruption, and inspiring legal changes all over the world.” The law did not go after BuzzFeed in this case. Nor did it end up going after ProPublica in a 2012 case concerning tax filings for Karl Rove’s nonprofit, Crossroads GPS, in which the IRS initially told BuzzFeed “that it would consider [the] publication of them to be criminal.”

      In the eyes of the IRS, ProPublica has once again committed the crime of letting the truth out of the bag. It may well escape any punishment. The pattern is always to prosecute the whistleblower, but that requires identifying that person. If, as in the case of Edwards, the government does succeed in prosecuting and sentencing the whistleblower, that will not serve to put the truth back in the bag. That is why the government will be relentless in seeking the whistleblower and why the public should be grateful both to that person and to ProPublica.

      The government’s aim is not to repair the damage already done, but to instill fear in any other courageous individual in the position to reveal the inner workings of a system designed for the financial elite and managed by the political elite. In Edwards’ case, US District Judge Gregory H. Woods made this point clear when he “said that it was necessary to impose a ’substantial meaningful sentence’ in order to discourage others from committing similar crimes.”

      Publishing substantial meaningful truth will always provoke the call for a substantial meaningful sentence.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Three bills show Congress can deliver for small business despite divisions | Gene Marks

      by

      Three bills are working their way through Congress that can provide significant help for small businesses. Do you know what they all have in common? Welcome signs of bipartisan support for small business.The first is the 504 Modernization and Small Manufacturer Enhancement Act of 2021. This bill, which passed the House in mid-April and is awaiting a Senate vote, is designed to make the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 504 Loan Program more accessible to manufacturers through certified development company (CDC) intermediaries. The manufacturers would be able to apply for the funding – which can be as much as $6.5m – if they can show that funds will be used for energy efficiency or aid in the revitalization of a disaster area. The bill increases the loan amount available for small manufacturers and relaxes some collateral requirements, as well requiring the SBA to provide training.Why is this bill important? Because it directs capital to manufacturers and leverages the underused CDCs. “Too many people are not as familiar with institutions like certified development companies,” says the Democratic representative Sharice Davids, a co-sponsor of the bill. “But they have a really great track record of servicing and helping small businesses who are either unbanked or underbanked.”Next is the Opportunity Zone Extension Act. Sponsored by the Republican representative Tim Burchett, this bill was introduced in the House in February and awaits a vote. It extends for two years the election and capital gain deferral periods for qualified opportunity zones (defined as an economically distressed community where private investments, under certain conditions, may be eligible for capital gain tax incentives).The bill incentivizes investments in small companies located in areas that need it the most. “If people don’t invest, the property falls into disrepair,” says Burchett. “But if there’s investment then jobs can be created, there’ll be more encouragement for further investments. I just think it’s a winning opportunity for our rural America and our inner-city America.”Finally, there’s the Microloan Transparency and Accountability Act of 2021. Passed in the House in September 2020 and re-introduced this year, the bill establishes a 5% technical assistance grant for certain financing intermediaries, including intermediaries who make 25% of their loans to rural small businesses.“It just really helps ensure that the Small Business Administration (SBA) gives rural small businesses access to micro loans,” Burchett, who also sponsors the bill, says. “I just don’t feel like people should be overlooked because of their location or maybe the color of their skin or the region that they grew up.”The bill also requires the SBA to report certain metrics related to the disbursement of microloans to small businesses.Yes, these bills all help small businesses – particularly small manufacturers, businesses in low to moderate income areas and rural companies – get more funding from the federal government. But there’s a bigger thing that these bills have in common: they’re very, very bipartisan.For example, the 504 Modernization and Small Manufacturer Enhancement Act of 2021 is co-sponsored by five Republicans (including Burchett) and three Democrats. The Opportunity Zone Extension Act has nine Republicans and two Democrats signed on. The Microloan Transparency and Accountability Act of 2021 has three Republicans and two Democrats on board.Unfortunately, these bills don’t get much media attention because they’re not headline-worthy. But for many small business owners, their passage could mean the difference between growth and stagnation, survival or demise.So, yes, political infighting makes a juicy story. But behind the scenes, there are some issues that both parties can agree on and one of those issues is supporting small businesses. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      US Senate approves $50bn boost for computer chip and AI technology to counter China

      by

      The US Senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill to boost American semiconductor production and the development of artificial intelligence and other technology in the face of growing international competition, most notably from China.The 68-32 vote for the bill on Tuesday demonstrates how confronting China economically is an issue that unites both parties in Congress. It is a rare unifying issue in an era of division as pressure grows on Democrats to change Senate rules to push past Republican opposition and gridlock.The centerpiece of the bill is a $50bn emergency allotment to the US commerce department to boost semiconductor development and manufacturing through research and incentive programs previously authorised by Congress. Overall, the bill would increase spending by about $250bn, with most of the spending occurring in the first five years.The bill now heads to the House of Representatives, which earlier passed a different version. The two will have to be reconciled into a single bill before it is sent to the White House for the president’s signature.Joe Biden said he was “encouraged” by the Senate’s passage of the United States Innovation and Competition Act.“We are in a competition to win the 21st century, and the starting gun has gone off,” Biden said.“As other countries continue to invest in their own research and development, we cannot risk falling behind. America must maintain its position as the most innovative and productive nation on Earth.”Supporters described the bill as the biggest investment in scientific research that the country has seen in decades. It comes as the nation’s share of semiconductor manufacturing globally has steadily eroded from 37% in 1990 to about 12% now, and as a chip shortage has exposed vulnerabilities in the US supply chain.“The premise is simple, if we want American workers and American companies to keep leading the world, the federal government must invest in science, basic research and innovation, just as we did decades after the second world war,” said Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer.“Whoever wins the race to the technologies of the future is going to be the global economic leader, with profound consequences for foreign policy and national security as well.“If we do nothing, our days as the dominant superpower may be ending. We don’t mean to let those days end on our watch. We don’t mean to see America become a middling nation in this century.”The bill has a number of other China-related provisions, including prohibiting the social media app TikTok from being downloaded on government devices, and would block the purchase of drones manufactured and sold by companies backed by the Chinese government.It would also allow diplomats and Taiwanese military to display their flag and wear their uniforms while in the US on official businesses, and creates broad new mandatory sanctions on Chinese entities engaged in US cyberattacks or theft of US intellectual property from US firms. It provides for a review of export controls on items that could be used to support human rights abuses.The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, backed the bill but said it was incomplete because it did not incorporate more Republican-sponsored amendments.“Needless to say, final passage of this legislation cannot be the Senate’s final word on our competition with China,” he said. “It certainly won’t be mine.”Senators slogged through days of debates and amendments leading up to Tuesday’s final vote. Schumer’s office said 18 Republican amendments will have received votes as part of passage of the bill. It also said the Senate this year has already held as many roll call votes on amendments than it did in the last Congress, when the Senate was under Republican control.While the bill enjoys bipartisan support, a core group of Republican senators has reservations about its costs.One of the bill’s provisions would create a new directorate focused on artificial intelligence and quantum science with the National Science Foundation. The bill would authorize up to $29bn over five years for the new branch within the foundation, with an additional $52bn for its programs.Rand Paul, a Republican senator for Kentucky, said Congress should be cutting the foundation’s budget, not increasing it. He called the agency “the king of wasteful spending”. The agency finances about a quarter of all federally supported research conducted by America’s colleges and universities.The lead Republican on the committee also weighed in to support the bill.“This is an opportunity for the United States to strike a blow on behalf of answering the unfair competition that we are seeing from communist China,” said Roger Wicker.Senators have tried to strike a balance when calling attention to China’s growing influence. They want to avoid fanning divisive anti-Asian rhetoric when hate crimes against Asian Americans have spiked during the coronavirus pandemic.Senators added provisions that reflect shifting attitudes toward China’s handling of the Covid-19 outbreak. One would prevent federal money for the Wuhan Institute of Virology as fresh investigations proceed into the origins of the virus and possible connections to the lab’s research. The city registered some of the first coronavirus cases. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Start me up: ‘car guy’ Joe Biden accelerates push to turn America electric

      by

      On a hot, sunny day in Michigan, Joe Biden zoomed around in a new electric version of the Ford F150, one of the automaker’s most famous vehicles.“This sucker’s quick,” Biden said as he drove up to reporters at Ford’s Rouge Electric Vehicle Center last month.Biden, a self-proclaimed American “car guy”, was there to tout electric vehicles, a key component of his administration’s trillion-dollar-plus infrastructure proposal.“The future of the auto industry is electric. There’s no turning back,” Biden said. “The question is whether we will lead or we will fall behind in the race to the future.”The proposed $174bn investment in electric vehicles represents the biggest ever White House push from fossil-fuel based vehicles and toward battery-powered cars. The Biden administration has made environmentalism and sustainability a key pillar to its job creation efforts, and the president wants to dramatically increase the number of electric vehicles on the road and the infrastructure for manufacturing them.This, Biden says, would create a wave of new green energy jobs and also help to fight climate change.At the beginning of the year, electric vehicles made up less than 5% of automobile sales in the US. But Biden’s proposal aims to dramatically push the American auto industry toward electric vehicles, mainly through incentives and tax credits. It would use funds to transition the fleet of federal agency cars such as those used by the US Postal Service, and the plan includes $45bn towards increasing the number of electric school buses and transit buses.It would also set up a national network of charging stations across the country, the current lack of which is seen as one of the bigger advantages combustion engine cars still have over electric vehicles. There are are only 41,400 electric vehicle charging stations (including fast-charging stations) in the United States, according to the Department of Energy. There are omore than 130,000 gasoline stations.It’s not clear, however, how those charging stations would be distributed – and what portion of them would go to poorer parts of America.But the plan aims to change the supply chain so the US depends less on other countries for batteries and other car parts. The administration wants to become less dependent on foreign countries for manufacturing electric vehicles and the parts that go into them.“It’s a systemic transition,” said John Paul MacDuffie, a University of Pennsylvania professor of management and vehicle expert. “Often if you just tackle one narrow piece of it you don’t make progress, because you bump into constraints in the system. So I think the ambition to be systemic is really good, and probably essential, to make progress.”As Biden drove around the Ford campus, hundreds of miles away Republicans in Congress were planning to gut the electric vehicles proposals in his American Jobs Plan.Negotiations over the entire infrastructure bill are continuing, but the last counter-offer made by Republicans slashed spending on Biden’s plan by about $170bn. It’s not clear what exactly the remaining $4bn would be spent on if the Republican proposal went into effect. A factsheet distributed by the office of Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, the lead negotiator, did not specify.In their criticisms, Republicans have cited the price tag on the electric vehicles provision. They say the government should not pour so much money into electric vehicles, and that doing so would end up killing jobs in other alternative vehicle areas, like ethanol.“For a person like me, from Iowa, if you have all electric cars, there’s going to be 43,000 people making ethanol and biodiesel that won’t be employed,” Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa told E&E News.Senator Roger Marshall of Kansas, another Republican who opposes government spending on electric vehicles, told the Guardian electric vehicles are prohibitively expensive.“My concern about an all-electric car policy is that it’s truly a social injustice. These electric cars are very expensive. Only the wealthy can afford them, and the wealthy benefit from the tax credits,” Marshall said.“I think we’re getting policy way ahead of technology. Certainly way ahead from a price point … But right now the big picture scares me. I think we’d have to increase our electric grid by 60%. That would take, theoretically 20, 40, 60 years to double or to increase the electric grid by 60%.”The price of electric vehicles varies widely. The Mini Cooper SE starts at about $30,000. The cheapest Tesla, the Model S, starts at about $40,000. More expensive models can run as high as $150,000. The price of electric vehicles is likely to drop if and when they become more popular and the technology improves. And the cost of batteries is dropping – rapidly. It’s going so fast that there’s evidence to expect most cars to be battery-powered by 2035.Marshall also said the environmental cost of battery-powered cars is high.“I think we have to look at the environmental footprint in looking what goes into a battery. The making of the battery,” Marshall said. “And eventually the disposal of these batteries.”Even electric vehicle advocates concede that the environmental impact of the raw materials used for electric batteries are not perfect. And there are also human rights concerns about mining those materials.But in Michigan, state senator Mallory McMorrow, a Democrat, said the technology around batteries and electric vehicles was getting better and more environmentally friendly.“I think that there’s a fair criticism in terms of the environmental impact of batteries from the mining perspective. But I think, like everything else, that’s improving,” McMorrow said.Even accounting for battery mining, petrol and diesel cars still have a far more negative impact on the environment than electric vehicles.Right now the American Jobs Plan is still a framework, and the gulf between Republicans and Democrats is vast. It’s unlikely that if a compromise is reached on the entire proposal, Biden will get all the funding he’s looking for. But it’s also unlikely that Republicans will have shrunk that funding to the minuscule amount they have offered so far.And around the country, lawmakers are making moves to nudge the country further toward electric vehicles. Governor Kate Brown of Oregon recently signed a bill to expand electric vehicle infrastructure in her state. In Illinois, Governor JB Pritzker has set a goal of 750,000 electric vehicles by 2030.McMorrow in Michigan has helped craft a proposal to encourage electric vehicles in the state.Congressman Andy Levin of Michigan and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York have introduced legislation that aims to set up a nationwide network of charging stations over the next five years. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate majority leader, also introduced legislation in 2019 that would help set up a network of charging stations also. Biden added that proposal to his American Jobs Plan in March.Even with a huge investment in electric vehicles, transitioning to where combustion cars are the minority on the road and electric vehicles are the majority will take time.“If you don’t start at some point making some move for the US to have a piece of the supply chain you’ll never be ready for the EV transition – and it will take a long time,” MacDuffie said. More