Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

President Obama Signs $10b of International Tax Increases

According to the Tax Prof Blog, President Obama signed H.R. 1586 into law yesterday. The legislation creates a “$10 billion fund to prevent teacher layoffs and provide a temporary increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, funded with corporate international tax changes.”

You can find more information on the new law through the official links below:

White House.gov: Another Step Towards Sustainable Recovery

Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586 (JCX-46-10)

Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimated Revenue Effects

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Obama Signs Wall Street Reform Into Law

As was expected, President Obama signed the new financial reform bill into law earlier today. The bill, which was over a year in the making, will be used to regulate financial institutions and protect the U.S. consumers and taxpayers.

"These reforms represent the strongest consumer financial protections in history," President Obama said. "And these protections will be enforced by a new consumer watchdog with just one job: looking out for people - not big banks, not lenders, not investment houses - in the financial system."

In a major signing ceremony at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, President Obama was flanked by a number of lawmakers who worked on the legislation, including Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the two committee chairmen who sponsored the bill.

The new law attempts to shine a light on complex financial products called derivatives and immediately gives regulators stronger powers to break up financial companies that have grown too big.

Among its many provisions, the law also creates a new consumer protection agency which would set rules to curb unfair practices in consumer loans and credit cards.

Continue reading at CNN.com…

Thursday, June 24, 2010

The Dumbest Financial Laws Of All Time

As we all know, lawmakers do not always get it right when they draft and support new financial laws. However, as this Forbes.com article shows, some times the bills they pass are so ridiculous that it is surprising they ever become law. In a new “Gallery of Pain,” Forbes.com has collected a slideshow of the dumbest financial laws of all time. You can find the text regarding some of the laws included in their list below, but be sure to view the slideshow at Forbes.com.

How worried should the world be about the new regulatory reform bill wending its way through the U.S. Congress? Given the country's track record on looking after the financial services industry, the answer is: plenty worried.

Even the staunchest believers in free enterprise would agree that a modicum of regulation is necessary for a functioning economy. The new bill, which Congress aims to get on President Obama's desk before the July recess, looks to be chock full of ways to ward off yet another financial crisis. These include: audits of the Federal Reserve; the dismantling of lucrative banking divisions devoted to crafting and trading complex securities called derivatives; an agency that would take quick control of troubled financial institutions; and the so-called Volcker rule, after former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, that would prohibit banks from making speculative trades with depositors' money.

Whatever ideas end up on the books, three things are certain.

First, regulation--no matter how well intended--comes with a whole heap of unintended consequences. Some laws have invited, or at least exacerbated, full-blown financial crises. (For a round-up of the most ill-fated legislation, see our slide show.) "Regulations are fixed in time and can't adapt," says David Weiman, a professor of economics history at Barnard College.

The second certainty: No matter what the rules are, the financial industry will figure out how to innovate around them. "New regulations often let people find ways within the letter of the law to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place," says Edward Kane, a professor of finance at Boston College.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Nebraska Town Votes to Banish Illegal Immigrants

The New York Times reports the residents of Freemont, Nebraska are trying to pass a law banning illegal immigrants from all other jobs and even rental homes. The new law, if it passes, will try to bar landlords from renting to those in the country illegally, requiring renters to provide information of the person to the police and to obtain city occupancy licenses.

Opponents say paying to defend such a local law would require a significant cut in Fremont city services or a major tax increase — or combination of the two. But advocates feel federal authorities failed to enforce immigration restrictions, forcing places like Freemont, Nebraska with a small but growing Hispanic population to take matters into their own hands.

The advocates of the law complained that illegal immigrants were causing an increase in crime, taking jobs that would once have gone to longtime residents and changing the character of their quiet city, some 30 miles of farm fields from Omaha.

Fremont’s Hispanic population, practically nonexistent two decades ago, has grown to about 2,000 people, according to some estimates. No one knows how many illegal immigrants live in Fremont, and the estimates (depending on which side of this debate one is on) vary enormously—as stated by the New York Times article.

It’s interesting to note how the new law wouldn’t apply to the area’s two largest meatpacking plants –including Hormel. They happen to be just outside official city limits.

This is what the A.CL.U. had to say in a statement about the Nebraska issue, “If this law goes into effect, it will cause discrimination and racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear to be foreign born, including U.S. citizens,” Laurel Marsh, executive director of A.C.L.U. Nebraska , said in a statement issued late Monday. “The A.C.L.U. Nebraska has no option but to turn to the courts to stop this un-American and unconstitutional ordinance before the law goes into effect. Not only do local ordinances such as this violate federal law, they are also completely out of step with American values of fairness and equality.”

Some residents were outraged by the choice, and began collecting signatures on a petition to put the question to a vote — the vote that ultimately came on Monday.

Read the the full article here. Tell me your thoughts on Facebook or @ronideutch on Twitter.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Arizona's Bill Is Bad For Business

There has been a lot of media attention placed on the effects of Arizona’s new immigration law and the impact on local residents. However, the bill also includes strict new immigration requirements for business owners. As this article from Forbes.com explains, the law is likely to make doing business in Arizona much more difficult.

SB 1070 is the most extreme anti-business law in recent history. For instance, sections 7 and 8 set out punishments for employers who knowingly or intentionally hire undocumented workers. In both cases for a first offense, the employer has to fire all undocumented workers, sign an affidavit attesting to that and promising not to repeat his mistake, and have all his business licenses suspended.

Additionally, and perhaps most gallingly, the business is then put on a three-year probation (five years for those that intentionally hire undocumented workers) and must file quarterly records to prove that it has not since broken the law again. This would amount to businesses being presumed guilty and being forced to prove their innocence. It will hurt entrepreneurship and endanger the economic recovery.

Most egregiously, if a business commits a second such offense and hires an undocumented worker, all of its business licenses are permanently revoked. Because it is illegal to operate a business without a state-sanctioned license in the state of Arizona, that amounts to the government forcibly shutting down someone's business.

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, warned against business licensing because it is used to limit competition and entrench politically sanctioned monopolies. It accomplishes that by limiting entry or destroying businesses already in existence. A simple administration revocation of a piece of paper can be used to destroy someone's livelihood. This is not only destructive to business in the short term but sets a dangerous precedent.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Obama Set To Sign Stimulus Bill Into Law

After weeks of renovation and a long approval process, Obama is now making his way to Denver, to sign his Stimulus Bill into law at a science museum. NECN.com posted a video and article discussing the plan and how it went. A portion of the article can be found below, but the video and full post can be viewed here.

As President Obama boarded Air Force One this morning for Denver, he left behind Washington D.C., where the stimulus bill faced nearly unanimous Republican opposition.

Instead, he'll sign the bill at a science museum, and focus on investment in green jobs and technology like wind and solar power.

It's a massive bill combining spending and tax breaks -- $787 billion dollars in all.

Some of the first money, $27 billion, will go to states for projects like road and bridge repair.

The bill also includes a $400 tax credit and incentives to buy first homes and new cars.

There's $100 billion in new spending for schools and colleges.

Unemployment and food benefits will be extended, a bit of help for these auto industry employees, who learned just yesterday, they're losing their jobs.

But will it work, and how fast? So far, stocks have tumbled as Wall Street investors worry it may be some time before the stimulus money helps turn the economy around.

GM and Chrysler, which have already received billions in federal loans, must submit plans to the government for staying viable by the end of the business day.

While the Obama administration reviews the proposals, the automakers will ask for another $7 billion dollars.

Blog Archive