Connect with us

Politics

President Trump disbands his business councils with one tweet

(POLITICS) President Trump has disbanded the councils that he previously very adamantly supported, so what happened?

Published

on

business council donald trump president net neutrality

We interrupt this regularly scheduled program

Huge news on the domestic policy front – per a Twitter announcement, President Trump’s two business advisory councils – the Strategic and Policy Forum and the Manufacturing Jobs Initiative – have been disbanded.

bar
The sequence of events has been fast and difficult to follow, but here’s how things went down.

See ya later

On Monday, Kenneth C. Frazier, the CEO of pharmaceutical giant Merck, resigned from the Manufacturing Jobs Initiative in protest at President Trump’s comments on the recent violence in Charlottesville. By the evening of the same day, Brian Krzanich of Intel and Kevin Planck of Under Armour had done the same. They were quickly followed by Thea Lee and Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO, Scott Paul of the Alliance of American Manufacturing, Denise Morrison of Campbell Soup and Inge Thulin of 3M.

This morning, in response to the sudden exodus, Stephen Schwartzman, chief executive of the Blackstone Group and longtime Trump business and political ally, led a conference call of the remaining council members this morning to debate how to proceed.

By the end, all members had resigned.

In short, President Trump is not disbanding his advisory councils in the sense of (no “The Apprentice” jokes, please) firing their members. The members already quit. The President’s Tweet simply announced that had taken place, and that, as it states he “disbanded” the now-vacant groups, there are presumably no plans in the near future to replace them.

Bold move

This is a surprising move from the President. Historically the role of business advisory councils has been to keep an open communication pipeline between the President and the American business community, something this president has consistently identified as a priority. President Trump has always positioned himself as passionately pro-business, particularly concerned with global competitiveness and the loss of jobs and revenue in American manufacturing.

The Strategic and Policy Forum and the Manufacturing Jobs Initiative were founded specifically to address those issues.

The business community in particular had expected the President to draw heavily on their advice.

On the other hand, that advice has repeatedly conflicted with the President’s other policies. Well before Charlottesville, the Strategic and Policy Forum had seen high-profile resignations: Bob Iger of Disney and Elon Musk of Tesla (who served on, and resigned from, both the SPF and the Manufacturing Jobs Initiative) resigned over the President’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, and ex-CEO of Uber Travis Kalanick departed over restrictions on immigration from the Middle East.

New directions

President Trump’s elimination of his business advisory councils clearly indicates a new direction in the relationship between the White House and the American business community.

What that direction will be, and what consequences it will have for the economy, remain to be seen.

#ByeByeBusiness

Matt Salter is a writer and former fundraising and communications officer for nonprofit organizations, including Volunteers of America and PICO National Network. He’s excited to put his knowledge of fundraising, marketing, and all things digital to work for your reading enjoyment. When not writing about himself in the third person, Matt enjoys horror movies and tabletop gaming, and can usually be found somewhere in the DFW Metroplex with WiFi and a good all-day breakfast.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

FFEE Act wants to save you from having to pay to freeze your credit

(POLITICS NEWS) The FFEE Act wants to help give consumers more rights more control over how credit agencies use their data.

Published

on

impulse ffee

Taking action

Following the compromise of consumer data from credit reporting bureau Equifax, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) have introduced the Freedom From Equifax Exploitation (FFEE) Act.

bar
This act aims to give consumers more rights more control over how credit agencies use their data.

The bill

The bill is available here, but here is a few of the bill’s highlights:

  • Create a uniform, federal process for obtaining and lifting a credit freeze.
  • Preventing credit reporting agencies from profiting off the use of consumer information for the duration of a credit freeze;
  • Strengthening the fraud alert protection from 90 days to a one year, with a year renewable.
  • In ID theft cases, a 7 year fraud alert is created.
  • Require any credit reporting agency who charged a fee to freeze credit in response to the data breach to refund those fees,
  • Allow for an additional free credit report (consumers already get one under the Fair Credit Reporting Act through annualcreditreport.com)

Freezing credit

The most important feature here is the removal of any fee to freeze your credit. Currently, agencies like Equifax charge nominal fees to freeze credit (anywhere from 3-10) dollars. If this bill passes – not only will that service be free, but it will restrict the way credit agencies use that information while the freeze is active.

The idea behind making this free also keeps credit companies, whom many believe are responsible for the security of credit information, from profiting off information breaches. Given that many financial advisors have advised those impacted to freeze their credit, this would be a benefit to consumers.

It is important to note here that Equifax has suspended the fees to freeze credit for the next month.

A credit freeze restricts access to your credit report. Simply put, it requires the credit agency to contact you first to ensure it was you who applied for credit, thus making it harder for you to apply for credit. You would need to unfreeze your account to apply for new credit. You must also freeze credit with each bureau, which can lead to some expenses as you must pay anytime to lift a freeze.

Remember: a credit freeze doesn’t impact current accounts or your credit score. If you apply for credit often, or open new accounts often, then a credit freeze may not be for you.

Lots of names

The bill has several original co-sponsors, including Senators Sanders, Franken, and Blumenthal. Companies like the National Consumer Law Center, Americans for Financial Reform, CREDO, and the Consumer Federation of America all have also endorsed the bill.

#CreditFreeze

Continue Reading

Politics

The House just voted to take away some important consumer rights

(POLITICS) If adopted by the Senate and the President, our banks, credit card companies, student loan companies, and other financial services will have a hall pass on all sorts of bad behavior.

Published

on

vote rights

Same story, different day

Big banks have won again, as they and other financial institutions continue to restrict consumer rights all in the name of “choice.” Well, choice for the companies that is.

bar
The GOP controlled House just voted to introduce a Congressional Review Act Resolution that if passed by the Senate, will make it harder for consumers to have their day in court.

Bump the consumers, right?

The Resolution would overturn rules from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) aimed at protecting consumer rights and keep financial institutions – like banks, credit card companies, and loan services – in check.

The rules center on the forced arbitration clause that is hidden among many contracts.

This clause allows consumers and companies the chance to settle issues behind closed doors without going through the legal system. That doesn’t sound too harsh at first glance, right? Well, of course there are a few caveats that allow the pendulum to swing in favor of financial companies.

Like the fact that there are no public records of these arbitrations, even if the company was found at fault.

Also, that consumers can choose between arbitration and the court system unless the company wants arbitration, then the choice is gone. Most importantly, forced arbitration severely limits class action lawsuits, which results in a lot less individual suits.

Wall Street wins again

Many bank-backed House representatives argued that class action lawsuits only result in a miniscule payout for consumers.

This may be true, but it is a smaller amount for a lot more people.

This means the company pays a larger amount to more mistreated consumers overall. House Democrats, none of which voted in favor of the Resolution, feel that this is another way for Wall Street to benefit from their ties to lawmakers. Without a chance to go to court, consumers are deprived of their rights simply by signing a contract.

There’s still hope

Consumers still have a chance if the Resolution is rejected by Congress. It will be more of a debate, since it would only take two opposing votes from the GOP side to reject it. Hopefully they will consider who the CFPB rules protect.

No consumers have raised issues to repeal them. It is a wish from the financial companies they have affected, and unfortunately their wish just may come true.

#RestrictingRights

Continue Reading

Politics

Contrary to popular belief, capitalism and climate change are NOT in conflict

(POLITICS) Climate change and capitalism could have a very nice symbiotic relationship.

Published

on

climate

Climate change conundrum

Climate change is often framed in the media as a highly partisan issue – liberals believe in it and fight against it, while conservatives deny or ignore it.

bar
But that’s not what the real political climate looks like, says conservative entrepreneur Ted Halstead.

Not just any old tax

According to Halstead, the GOP resists liberal solutions only because they interfere with capitalism, disrupting the market and imposing burdensome regulations, rather than working within capitalism’s “operating system” to fix the “bug” – namely, that market prices don’t always reflect social and environmental costs, especially in the long term.

So Halstead and his colleagues at the Climate Leadership Council proposed a solution that would operate within the market with the aim of correcting the bug:

a carbon tax.

If you’re thinking that’s nothing new, you’re right. But Halstead and company’s proposal goes a step further.

No one wants to be taxed, they rightly note.

And the benefits of a carbon tax are long term, far out of range of an immediate payoff for citizens whose money is suddenly being taken away in greater quantities than before.

So why not give the money back?

The Climate Leadership Council’s solution goes something like this:

1. Impose a carbon tax at “the first point where fossil fuels enter the economy.” That means the mine, the well, the port, etc. They suggest beginning with a tax of $40 per ton, and gradually increasing that amount over time.

2. Send all that tax revenue right back to the American people, probably in the form of monthly or quarterly dividends. Presumably each citizen with a social security number would receive an equal payout. The idea is that if you produce fewer fossil fuel emissions, either as a mine/well/port of as a consumer, you pay less in carbon taxes, and thus make a greater profit (or lose less money) with the dividends.

3. Implement “border adjustments for the carbon content of both imports and exports” to “protect American competitiveness and punish free-riding by other nations.” Basically, try to even things out so that we don’t lose money when we deal with less ecologically righteous countries. The Council cites “rebates” for exports to countries without similar carbon taxes, though they do not mention where the funds for those rebates would come from.

4. Repeal Obamacare! Oh wait, sorry. I mean, “Repeal the Clean Air Act!” The final phase of the Council’s plan calls for rolling back EPA regulations “that are no longer necessary upon the enactment of a rising carbon tax whose longevity is secured by the popularity of dividends.” Pretty confident there, guys.

Mostly true

The Council claims that these dividends would increase as the amount of the per-ton tax increased, which is true up to a point.

However, the idea is to drastically reduce carbon emissions, no?

So eventually, when the tax is at a point where the market just can’t support it, and no one can afford to produce much if any fossil fuels, the revenue from the tax will begin to shrink, and dividends will decrease accordingly.

And that would be a good thing!

That would mean that we’d taken an effective step toward slowing the rate of climate change.

However, if a plan like this gets marketed to the public solely as a promise of a few bonus checks a year, that public is going to be pretty disgruntled when the checks get smaller, or stop coming altogether.Click To Tweet

If a plan like this is executed, lawmakers and PR teams will need to be very careful with their language, especially early on.

#ClimateChangeCapitalism

Continue Reading
Advertisement

The
American Genius
News neatly in your inbox

Join thousands of AG fans and SUBSCRIBE to get business and tech news updates, breaking stories, and MORE!

Emerging Stories