#advanced tax strategies

[jubilee0]

Within the intricate framework of the US tax code, both people and corporations are always looking for methods to best position themselves financially while still adhering to the ever-changing tax regulations. With a plethora of advantages that go well beyond basic tax filing, advanced tax strategies and expert tax preparation services have become indispensable resources in this endeavor.

[oasatax]

Can Advanced Tax Planning Strategies California Help Me Save on Taxes?

When it comes to managing finances, taxes often feel like a daunting challenge. However, with advanced tax planning strategies California, you can minimize liabilities and maximize savings. Whether you're a business owner or an individual, these strategies provide tailored solutions to optimize your financial outcomes.

What Are Advanced Tax Planning Strategies?

Advanced tax planning strategies involve proactive and personalized approaches to tax management. Instead of waiting until the tax season to address liabilities, these strategies assess your financial situation year-round to uncover opportunities for deductions, credits, and exemptions.

For instance, a California resident might leverage tax-advantaged accounts, such as IRAs or HSAs, strategically plan charitable contributions, or restructure business operations to align with tax laws. These methods go beyond basic tax filing, ensuring that you pay only what you owe—no more, no less.

How Can Advanced Tax Planning Save You Money?

Tax planning isn’t just about compliance; it’s about strategy. By utilizing advanced tax planning strategies California, you can legally reduce taxable income and avoid penalties. Here's how:

Optimizing Deductions Many taxpayers overlook deductions they qualify for. Strategies like grouping medical expenses or accelerating certain payments can maximize deductible amounts.

Leveraging Tax Credits California offers various tax credits, including those for clean energy investments, education, and research and development. A proper plan ensures you claim every eligible credit.

Smart Income Timing Adjusting the timing of income and expenses can shift tax burdens to years when rates are more favorable.

Estate Planning If you’re managing significant assets, advanced tax planning helps protect wealth through trusts, gifts, and other legal instruments.

Why Work with Professionals?

The U.S. tax code is complex, and California's specific regulations add another layer of intricacy. Professional guidance ensures compliance and uncovers strategies you might miss. At Optimize Accounting Solutions, we specialize in creating customized plans tailored to your unique financial needs.

Our team stays updated with ever-changing tax laws, allowing us to recommend solutions that align with your goals. Whether you're an entrepreneur navigating business taxes or an individual seeking to reduce personal liabilities, our expertise can make a difference.

Conclusion: Save More with the Right Tax Strategy

In a state like California, where taxes are among the highest in the nation, effective planning is crucial. Advanced tax planning strategies aren’t just for the wealthy—they're for anyone looking to reduce their tax burden and retain more of their hard-earned money.

At Optimize Accounting Solutions, we’re committed to empowering you with actionable strategies that bring measurable results. Contact us today to explore how our expertise can help you save and thrive. Together, we’ll build a tax plan that aligns with your goals and keeps your financial future secure.

Optimize Accounting Solutions 39812 Mission Blvd #218, Fremont, CA 94539, United States (510) 574 8849 info@oasatax.com https://maps.app.goo.gl/wNh21TTwJDLTzWjSA

[dadjglobal1]

DADJ Global offers a comprehensive suite of services tailored to meet your business needs. From strategic consulting to innovative technology solutions, we are your trusted partner for success. Explore our diverse range of services designed to elevate your business to new heights.

[techminsolutions]

Navigating Income Tax Compliance: Unraveling Section 276CC and Safeguarding Your Financial Future

Taxpayers, brace yourselves! The landscape of income tax compliance is undergoing a seismic shift, and it’s time to shed the “letting things be” approach. The Income Tax Authorities have unleashed their arsenal, specifically through Section 276CC, to crack down on non-filers and suspected tax evaders. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll delve into the intricacies of Section 276CC, explore recent…

[ifindtaxpro]

🌐 Dive into the world of transfer pricing and its profound impact on multinational corporations' tax strategies. Get insights on compliance, BEPS, and optimizing your global tax approach. 💼🌍 #TransferPricing #TaxStrategy #BusinessTax 📈💰

[britannicaes]

The Ultimate Guide to Tax-Saving Techniques: A Beginner's Handbook

The Ultimate Guide to Tax-Saving Techniques: A Beginner's Handbook

Master the art of tax-saving with our comprehensive beginner's guide. Explore the best strategies, tips for beginners, advanced methods, deductions, and credits. Tailored techniques for small businesses included. Start saving more today!

Read more >>

[veritasforward]

"Who Not How": A Game-Changer for CPAs Seeking Success

By Eric Runge, Advanced Planning Lead As a tax professional, you're no stranger to the challenges that come with managing a workload, serving numerous clients, battling (maybe?) analysis paralysis, dealing with staffing issues, and striving for higher firm revenues. The constant juggling act can leave you feeling overwhelmed and struggling to find effective solutions to get you to where you want to be. However, there's a concept that can revolutionize the way you handle these problems and help you navigate them with clarity and purpose. Enter the "Who Not How" approach—a powerful mindset shift that can transform the way you tackle challenges and drive your CPA practice to new heights.

The Problems CPAs Face:

1. Workload Overload: As a CPA, you have a never-ending to-do list, leaving you stretched thin and struggling to find time for strategic planning and growth initiatives.

2. Too Many Clients, Not Enough Time: Managing a large client base can be a double-edged sword. While it's a testament to your expertise and reputation, it can also lead to an unsustainable workload and compromised client service.

3. Analysis Paralysis: In an industry that demands precision and accuracy, the pressure to analyze every detail can sometimes lead to decision paralysis on bigger-picture issues like marketing and business development, hindering progress and wasting valuable time.

4. Staff Hiring Frustrations: Finding and retaining top talent can be a daunting task, causing frustration and impacting the efficiency and effectiveness of your firm.

5. Low Firm Revenues: Despite your expertise and hard work, achieving desired revenue levels can be an ongoing struggle, leaving you wondering how to break free from this cycle.

The Power of "Who Not How":

In the midst of these challenges, the "Who Not How" concept offers a fresh perspective and a transformative approach to problem-solving. Coined by entrepreneur Dan Sullivan, this mindset shift emphasizes the importance of focusing on who can help you, rather than how you can do it all yourself.

1. Leveraging Expertise: Embrace the notion that you don't have to be an expert in every aspect of your business. Instead, identify your strengths and seek out experts to handle things for you in areas where you lack knowledge or experience. Don't try to become all things to all people. Instead, stay in your own swim lane and bring in others who are great at staying in theirs. By partnering with specialists, whether through outsourcing, consultants, or strategic collaborations, you can tap into their expertise to achieve better results efficiently.

2. Delegating and Streamlining: Recognize that you can't be everywhere at once. Delegate tasks that are not the best use of your time, allowing you to focus on high-value activities. Consider ideas from business experts, including outsourcing services like Tax Titans or Entigrity, and automation tools and technologies that can streamline repetitive processes, freeing up your time and energy for higher-value endeavors.

3. Collaboration and Networking: Connect with other professionals in your industry, such as financial advisors, marketing experts, or business advisors (only those who have done what you're seeking to do), who can bring fresh perspectives and help you find time-tested solutions. Building relationships with like-minded individuals-especially those who already have a broad team of professionals in place-can provide invaluable support, insights, and potential partnerships.

4. Growth Mindset: Embracing the "Who Not How" approach shifts your mindset from being limited by your own capabilities to one of growth and expansion. It opens up possibilities and encourages you to seek out opportunities that align with your goals, even if they require collaboration or seeking external help.

Conclusion:

By shifting your perspective from "how can I do it all?" to "who can do it for me?", you open up a world of possibilities. Leverage the expertise of others, delegate tasks that are not your strengths, collaborate with industry peers, and nurture a growth mindset that welcomes new opportunities. Embracing the power of the "Who Not How" approach will not only alleviate the burdens of overwhelming workloads and staffing challenges but also enable you to focus on what truly matters – delivering exceptional service to your clients, making informed decisions, and driving your firm's profitability. Remember, success is not about doing it all alone, but rather about building a network of trusted experts and partners who can propel you towards a brighter and more prosperous future. The Team-Based Model is built on "Who not How." Schedule with me today to learn how to incorporate it into your practice. Schedule With Me Website Linkedin

[nostalgicamerica]

Here are a few of the assinine projects on which USAID spent US tax dollars:

— $7.9 million to teach Sri Lankan journalists how to avoid “binary-gendered language”

— $20 million for a new Sesame Street show in Iraq

— $4.5+ million to “combat disinformation” in Kazakhstan

— $1.5 million for “art for inclusion of people with disabilities”

— $2 million for sex changes and “LGBT activism” in Guatemala

— $6 million to “transform digital spaces to reflect feminist democratic principles”

— $2.1 million to help the BBC “value the diversity of Libyan society”

— $10 million worth of USAID-funded meals, which went to an al Qaeda-linked terrorist group

— $25 million for Deloitte to promote “green transportation” in the country of Georgia

— $6 million for tourism in Egypt

— $2.5 million to promote “inclusion” in Vietnam

— $16.8 million for a SEPARATE “inclusion” group in Vietnam

— ~$5 million to EcoHealth Alliance, one of the key NGOs funding bat virus research at the Wuhan lab

— $20 million for a group related to a key player in the Russiagate impeachment hoax

— $1.1 million to an Armenian “LGBT group”

— $1.2 million to help the African Methodist Episcopal Church Service and Development Agency in Washington, D.C., build “a state-of-the-art 440 seat auditorium”

— $1.3 million to Arab and Jewish photographers

— $1.5 million to promote “LGBT advocacy” in Jamaica

— $1.5 million to “rebuild” the Cuban media ecosystem

— $2 million to promote “LGBT equality through entrepreneurship” in Latin America

— $500K to solve sectarian violence in Israel (just ten days before the Hamas October 7 attack)

— $2.3 million for “artisanal and small scale gold mining” in the Amazon

— $3.9 million for “LGBT causes” in the western Balkans

— $5.5 million for LGBT activism in Uganda

— $6 million for advancing LGBT issues in “priority countries around the world”

— $6.3 million for men who have sex with men in South Africa

— $8.3 million for “USAID Education: Equity and Inclusion”

— USAID’s “climate strategy” outlined a $150 billion “whole-of-agency” approach to building an “equitable world with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.”

For decades, USAID bureaucrats believed they were accountable to no one — but that era is over.

————————

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[maplewoodstreet]

CONTENT WARNING: police, violence

Some Stop Cop City TikToks caught my attention

and got me interested in learning more about Cop City. I thought I would share some of the information I found.

from Police Foundations. These are not necessarily corporations that donated to Cop City, but they are to show that donating to police is something corporations regularly do.

Cop City is another name for the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center in Atlanta, Georgia.

Funded with $90,000,000 in taxes and donations.

Largest police training facility in the United States.

Located in the densest black populated area in Georgia.

Cop City is being built in one of Atlanta’s last forests.

Stop Cop City protester and environmentalist activist Manuel Esteban Paez Terán was shot “12 or 13” times by a police officer despite Terán not firing at the police. The cop did not face charges because the killing was “objectively reasonable under the circumstances of this case”.

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr described Defend Atlanta Forest as “an anarchist, anti-police, and anti-business extremist organization” and 61 activists have been charged with domestic terrorism.

The Israel Defense Force (IDF) directly shares strategies with the Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange (GILEE). “The Atlanta Police Department and Fulton County SWAT teams had conducted training exercises in an abandoned hotel to remove “Hamas terrorists’.”

Corporations like Dunkin Donuts parent corporation Inspire Brands, Coca-Cola, Chic-Fil-A, Bank of America, UPS, Norfolk Southern, and more help fund Cop City with multimillion-dollar donations. Coca-Cola, UPS, Chic-Fil-A, and more made statements during the murder of George Floyd with things like “…end the cycle of systemic racism”, “creating social impact, advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion”, and “building stronger communities.” Corporations often donate to police foundations.

Articles sourced:

https://prismreports.org/2023/11/14/stop-cop-city-gilee-palestinian-genocide/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/morgansimon/2023/03/14/cops-and-donuts-go-together-more-than-you-thought-the-corporations-funding-cop-city-in-atlanta/ 

I’m not a professional or even a hobbyist journalist, so if I have wrong information here, please let me know.

[houseofbrat]

Bernie Would Have Won

By Krystal Ball

There are a million surface-level reasons for Kamala Harris’s loss and systematic underperformance in pretty much every county and among nearly every demographic group. She is part of a deeply unpopular administration. Voters believe the economy is bad and that the country is on the wrong track. She is a woman and we still have some work to do as a nation to overcome long-held biases. 

But the real problems for the Democrats go much deeper and require a dramatic course correction of a sort that, I suspect, Democrats are unlikely to embark upon. The bottom line is this: Democrats are still trying to run a neoliberal campaign in a post-neoliberal era. In other words, 2016 Bernie was right.

Let’s think a little bit about how we got here. The combination of the Iraq War and the housing collapse exposed the failures and rot that were the inevitable result of letting the needs of capital predominate over the needs of human beings. The neoliberal ideology which was haltingly introduced by Jimmy Carter, embraced fully by Ronald Reagan, and solidified across both parties with Bill Clinton embraced a laissez-faire market logic that would supplant market will for national will or human rights, but also raise incomes enough overall and create enough dynamism that the other problems were in theory, worth the trade off. Clinton after all ran with Reagan era tax cutting, social safety net slashing and free trade radicalism with NAFTA being the most prominent example. 

Ultimately, of course, this strategy fueled extreme wealth inequality. But for a while this logic seemed to be working out. The Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended. Incomes did indeed rise and the internet fueled tech advances contributing to a sense of cosmopolitan dynamism. America had a swaggering confidence that these events really did represent a sort of end of history. We believed that our brand of privatization, capitalism, and liberal democracy would take over the world. We confidently wielded institutions like the World Bank, IMF, and WTO to realize this global vision. We gave China most-favored nation trade status.

Underneath the surface, the unchecked market forces we had unleashed were devastating communities in the industrial Midwest and across the country. By the neoliberal definition NAFTA was a roaring success contributing to GDP growth. But if your job was shipped overseas and your town was shoved into economic oblivion, the tradeoff didn’t seem like such a great deal.

The underlying forces of destruction came to a head with two major catastrophes, the Iraq War and the housing collapse/Great Recession. The lie that fueled the Iraq war destroyed confidence in the institutions that were the bedrock of this neoliberal order and in the idea that the U.S. could or should remake the world in our image. Even more devastating, the financial crisis left home owners destitute while banks were bailed out, revealing that there was something deeply unjust in a system that placed capital over people. How could it be that the greedy villains who triggered a global economic calamity were made whole while regular people were left to wither on the vine?

These events sparked social movements on both the right and the left. The Tea Party churned out populist-sounding politicians like Sarah Palin and birtherist conspiracies about Barack Obama, paving the way for the rise of Donald Trump. The Tea Party and Trumpism are not identical, of course, but they share a cast of villains: The corrupt bureaucrats or deep state. The immigrants supposedly changing your community. The cultural elites telling you your beliefs are toxic. Trump’s version of this program is also explicitly authoritarian. This authoritarianism is a feature not a bug for some portion of the Trump coalition which has been persuaded that democracy left to its own devices could pose an existential threat to their way of life. 

On the left, the organic response to the financial crisis was Occupy Wall Street, which directly fueled the Bernie Sanders movement. Here, too, the villains were clear. In the language of Occupy it was the 1% or as Bernie put it the millionaires and billionaires. It was the economic elite and unfettered capitalism that had made it so hard to get by. Turning homes into assets of financial speculation. Wildly profiteering off of every element of our healthcare system. Busting unions so that working people had no collective power. This movement was, in contrast to the right, was explicitly pro-democracy, with a foundational view that in a contest between the 99% and the 1%, the 99% would prevail. And that a win would lead to universal programs like Medicare for All, free college, workplace democracy, and a significant hike in the minimum wage.  

These two movements traveled on separate tracks within their respective party alliances and met wildly different fates. On the Republican side, Donald Trump emerged as a political juggernaut at a time when the party was devastated and rudderless, having lost to Obama twice in a row. This weakened state—and the fact that the Trump alternatives were uncharismatic drips like Jeb Bush—created a path for Trump to successfully execute a hostile takeover of the party.

Plus, right-wing populism embraces capital, and so it posed no real threat to the monied interests that are so influential within the party structures. The uber-rich are not among the villains of the populist right (see: Elon Musk, Bill Ackman, and so on), except in so much as they overlap with cultural leftism. The Republican donor class was not thrilled with Trump’s chaos and lack of decorum but they did not view him as an existential threat to their class interests. This comfort with him was affirmed after he cut their taxes and prioritized union busting and deregulation in his first term in office.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party put its thumb on the scales and marshaled every bit of power they could, legitimate and illegitimate, to block Bernie Sanders from a similar party takeover. The difference was that Bernie’s party takeover did pose an existential threat—both to party elites who he openly antagonized and to the party’s big money backers. The bottom line of the Wall Street financiers and corporate titans was explicitly threatened. His rise would simply not be allowed. Not in 2016 and not in 2020.

What’s more, Hillary Clinton and her allies launched a propaganda campaign to posture as if they were actually to the left of Bernie by labeling him and his supporters sexist and racist for centering class politics over identity politics. This in turn spawned a hell cycle of woke word-policing and demographic slicing and dicing and antagonism towards working class whites that only made the Democratic party more repugnant to basically everyone.

This identity politics sword has also been wielded within the Democratic Party to crush any possibility of a Bernie-inspired class focused movement in Congress attempted by the Justice Democrats and the Squad in 2018. My colleague Ryan Grim has written an entire book on this subject so I won’t belabor the point here. But suffice it to say, the threat of the Squad to the Democratic Party’s ideology and order has been thoroughly neutralized. The Squad members themselves, perhaps out of ideology and perhaps out of fear of being smeared as racist, leaned into identitarian politics which rendered them non-threatening in terms of national popular appeal. They were also relentlessly attacked from within the party, predominately by pro-Israel groups that an unprecedented tens of millions of dollars in House primaries, which has led to the defeat of several members and has served as a warning and threat to the rest.

That brings us to today where the Democratic Party stands in the ashes of a Republican landslide which will sweep Donald Trumpback into the White House. The path not taken in 2016 looms larger than ever. Bernie’s coalition was filled with the exact type of voters who are now flocking to Donald Trump: Working class voters of all races, young people, and, critically, the much-derided bros. The top contributors to Bernie’s campaign often held jobs at places like Amazon and Walmart. The unions loved him. And—never forget—he earned the coveted Joe Rogan endorsement that Trump also received the day before the election this year. It turns out, the Bernie-to-Trump pipeline is real! While that has always been used as an epithet to smear Bernie and his movement, with the implication that social democracy is just a cover for or gateway drug to right wing authoritarianism, the truth is that this pipeline speaks to the power and appeal of Bernie’s vision as an effective antidote to Trumpism. When these voters had a choice between Trump and Bernie, they chose Bernie. For many of them now that the choice is between Trump and the dried out husk of neoliberalism, they’re going Trump.

I have always believed that Bernie would have defeated Trump in 2016, though of course there is no way to know for sure. What we can say for sure is that the brand of class-first social democracy Bernie ran on in 2016 has proven successful in other countries because of course the crisis of neoliberalism is a global phenomenon. Most notably, Bernie’s basic political ideology was wildly successful electorally with Andrés Manuel López Obrador and now his successor Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico, Lula Da Silva in Brazil, and Evo Morales in Bolivia. AMLO, in fact, was one of the most popular leaders in the entire world and dramatically improved the livelihoods of a majority of his countrymen. Bernie’s basic ideology was also successful in our own history.

In the end, I got this election dead wrong. I thought between January 6th and the roll back of human rights for women, it would be enough. I thought that the overtly fascist tendencies of Donald Trump and the spectacle of the world’s richest man bankrolling him would be enough strikes against him to overcome the problems of the Democratic Party which I have spoken out about for years now–problems Kamala Harris decided to lean into rather than confront. Elevating Liz Cheney as a top surrogate was not just a slap in the face to all the victims of American imperialism—past and ongoing; it was a broad signal to voters that Democrats were the party of elites, playing directly into right-wing populist tropes. While the media talked about it as a “tack to the center,” author and organizer Jonathan Smucker more aptly described it as “a tack to the top.” And as I write this now, I have zero hope or expectation that Democrats will look at the Bernie bro coalition and realize why they screwed up. Cable news pundits are already blaming the left once again for the failures of a party that has little to do with the actual left and certainly not the populist left. 

Instead, Trump’s victory represents a defeat of social democratic class-first politics in America—not quite final, but not temporary either. The Democrats have successfully smothered the movement, blocked the entranceways, salted the earth. Instead they will, as Bill Clinton did in the ‘90s, embrace the fundamental tenets of the Trumpist worldview. 

They already are, in fact. Democrats have dropped their resistance to Trump’s mass deportation policies and immigrant scapegoating. The most ambitious politician in the Democratic coalition, Gavin Newsom, is making a big show of being tough-on-crime and dehumanizing the homeless. Democrat-leaning billionaires like Jeff Bezos who not only owns Amazon but the Washington Post have already abandoned their resistance.

Maybe I will be just as wrong as I was about the election but it is my sense that with this Trump victory, authoritarian right politics have won the ideological battle for what will replace the neoliberal order in America. And yes, I think it will be ugly, mean, and harmful—because it already is.

[whencyclopedia]

Ancient Chinese Warfare

In ancient China warfare was a means for one region to gain ascendancy over another, for the state to expand and protect its frontiers, and for usurpers to replace an existing dynasty of rulers. With armies consisting of tens of thousands of soldiers in the first millennium BCE and then hundreds of thousands in the first millennium CE, warfare became more technologically advanced and ever more destructive. Chariots gave way to cavalry, bows to crossbows and, eventually, artillery stones to gunpowder bombs. The Chinese intelligentsia may have frowned upon warfare and those who engaged in it and there were notable periods of relative peace but, as in most other ancient societies, for ordinary people it was difficult to escape the insatiable demands of war: either fight or die, be conscripted or enslaved, win somebody else's possessions or lose all of one's own.

Attitudes to Warfare

The Chinese bronze age saw a great deal of military competition between city-rulers eager to grab the riches of their neighbours, and there is no doubt that success in this endeavour legitimised reigns and increased the welfare of the victors and their people. Those who did not fight had their possessions taken, their dwellings destroyed and were usually either enslaved or killed. Indeed, much of China's history thereafter involves wars between one state or another but it is also true that warfare was perhaps a little less glorified in ancient China than it was in other ancient societies.

The absence of a glorification of war in China was largely due to the Confucian philosophy and its accompanying literature which stressed the importance of other matters of civil life. Military treatises were written but, otherwise, stirring tales of derring-do in battle and martial themes, in general, are all rarer in Chinese mythology, literature and art than in contemporary western cultures, for example. Even such famous works as Sun-Tzu's The Art of War (5th century BCE) warned that, "No country has ever profited from protracted warfare” (Sawyer, 2007, 159). Generals and ambitious officers studied and memorised the literature on how to win at war but starting from the very top with the emperor, warfare was very often a policy of last resort. The Han Dynasty (206 BCE - 220 CE) was notable for its expansion, as were some Tang Dynasty emperors (618-907 CE) but, in the main, a strategy of paying off neighbours with vast tributes of silver and silk, along with a parallel exportation of “civilising” culture was seen as the best way to defend imperial China's borders. Then, if war ultimately proved unavoidable, it was better to recruit foreign troops to get on with it.

Joining the intellectuals with their disapproval of warfare were also the bureaucrats who had no time for uncultured military men. No doubt, too, the vast majority of the Chinese peasantry were never that keen on war either for it was they who had to endure conscription, heavy taxes in kind to pay for costly campaigns, and have their farms invaded and plundered.

With the emperors, the landed gentry, intellectuals and farmers all well-aware of what they could lose in war, it was, then, somewhat disappointing for them all that China, in any case, had just as many conflicts as anywhere else in the world in certain periods. One cannot ignore the common presence of fortifications in the bronze age, such chaotic centuries as the Autumn and Spring Period (722-481 BCE) with its one hundred plus rival states, the Warring States Period (481-221 BCE) with its incredible 358 separate conflicts or the fall of the Han when war was once again incessant between rival Chinese states. Northern steppe tribes were also constantly prodding and poking at China's borders and emperors were not averse to the odd foreign folly such as attacking ancient Korea.

Continue reading...

[truth-has-a-liberal-bias]

The House voted Wednesday night to pass a $78 billion tax package that includes an expansion of the child tax credit, sending it to the Senate, where its path is uncertain. The Republican-led House passed the bipartisan measure 357-70...

...

It now heads to the Senate, where it will need at least 60 votes to advance.

Given the margin in the House, and the scope of the bipartisan support, that might not seem like much of a challenge, but one GOP senator summarized a core problem. NBC News also reported:

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, cast doubt Wednesday on passing a bipartisan tax bill, saying it could make President Joe Biden “look good” and improve Democrats’ chances of holding the White House in the 2024 election. Grassley said re-electing Biden could hurt Republican hopes of extending Trump-era tax cuts.

...

The problem is not that the Iowa Republican opposes the underlying legislation; the problem is that his principal concern is avoiding governing successes that might make President Joe Biden “look good” in an election year.

The longtime GOP senator could put country over party, but by his own admission, he’s reluctant to do so. To hear Grassley tell it, reducing child poverty is fine, but helping the Republican Party’s electoral strategies is better. [...]

[uboat53]

Well, we're rapidly approaching inauguration day which means Trump is going to be president soon. Given that, it's time to inoculate you against a monumentally stupid perception that I can't believe has hung around for an entire decade.

Donald Trump is not smart. He's not playing 5-dimensional chess, he's not finding new ways to solve old problems, and he's not operating on a level most of us can't comprehend. The next four years are going to be hard enough and Trump's administration will undoubtedly do some genuinely terrible things. It will be terrible enough without having to over-analyze and obsess over every nonsensical utterance the man makes. He's actually extremely simplistic and predictable, just in a way that most people have way to much dignity, integrity, and/or shame to attempt.

This week's sideshow is no exception. For those who missed it, Donald Trump has been threatening to militarily seize Greenland, annex Canada, retake the Panama Canal, and rename the Gulf of Mexico and I've seen far too many breathless articles wondering what the strategic intention of these bombastic threats are. Is he trying to obtain concessions? Is he setting up a strategy that will pay dividends down the road? Is he doing something we can't understand yet? Will he follow through with it?

None of that, guys, it's a lot simpler and stupider.

Look, right now, Trump's having a rough time. Biden is doing popular things that Trump wants to undo but will find hard to undo because, you know, they're popular, his attempt to appoint a bunch of incompetent cronies to major executive branch posts is going poorly and it looks likely that a lot of them won't get confirmed, the Senate is also refusing to go on recess to allow him to recess appoint anyone, the debt ceiling didn't get raised or waived, so now he's got to deal with that pretty much immediately upon taking office, he's being forced to admit that he can't do anything about grocery prices or inflation, you know, the two main things he campaigned on, it's looking pretty likely that Jack Smith's final report is going to get a public release before he takes office and can block it, and Republicans are in complete disarray about how to pass even the border and tax bills they agree on much less anything else.

Not only are those not things he really knows how to deal with, they make him look weak. So he does what he always does when he feels weak, he starts shouting about something batshit insane that he thinks makes him look strong instead. Threatening military invasion is stupid, but it's a strong stupid. Not like failing to address any of the problems in the US economy and government or being revealed as a traitor to the country, those are weak stupid things.

This is what he always does, it's so predictable that I don't even have to actually read what he's shouting about to know he's trying to distract from something. You can do this every time. Remember in September how he accused Harris of having the questions from the debate in advance? Yeah, turns out now that FOX News gave HIM the questions from their town hall in advance. Remember when he went on a tirade about immigrants in November of 2018? Yeah, turns out he was trying to distract from China approving a bunch of trademarks for Ivanka. Every time.

So stop driving yourself crazy wondering what incredibly complex game Trump could be playing and start looking for whatever he's trying to distract you from. You'll always find it and, once you do, you can say "ah, okay" and get on with your day and, when someone bring it up, you can then show off by explaining to them exactly what's going on. Trump's not playing hyperchess, he's trying to distract you from the fact that he's losing a game of tic-tac-toe.

[tangibletechnomancy]

The reason I keep stressing that The Problem Is Capitalism isn't because I think we should all just give up on doing damage control with the worst of the ways new tech is abused and wait until Capitalism Gets Overthrown and solves all our problems; I think that's an incredibly stupid strategy for anything and damage control matters a lot-

I keep stressing it because ~98% of the proposed "solutions" are at best time-honored losing bets (e.g., "unmake these technological advances! Shove those worms back in the can NOW!") and at worst actively making things worse (agreeing with corporations that use of new tech is Mindless Unskilled Labor not even worth minimum wage) or even indulging in blatant trad and/or fascist ideology abstracted by the computer (if you have accepted the premise that degenerate art is a real thing and a great replacement is possible, you are headed for some DARK places even if you truly believe you're not fighting any human - you're already dehumanizing the people operating the "robot" you hate so much by extension).

We don't need copyright to devastate transformative art, we don't need to shove worms back in a can, and we DEFINITELY don't need to attack random hobbyists as Fake Artists; we need unions and automation taxes. We don't need to clamor for Real Art over Degenerate Art, we need to recognize the work involved in art that's been devalued for decades. We need to, for example, stop shitting on CGI because it's "lazy" and start shitting on the conditions that MAKE it unfairly cheaper than practical effects - i.e., corporate greed combined with the idea that the computer just does it for you and CGI is a cop-out rather than an art that we've been hearing since 1982; we need to push for VFX artists to unionize and recognize them as artists. We need improved unemployment protection as a foot in the door that can be upgraded into UBI, paid for with said automation taxes. We need online privacy protections so we have more control over who has access to personal things in the first place, as far as we can have privacy in a public space at all, and we need to undo Facebook culture and start remembering, and reminding others, that public websites ARE public.

Does it suck that the easy way out is anywhere from impotent to actively detrimental? Yes. Does the fact that it sucks suddenly make it untrue? No!

[batboyblog]

The Biden administration on Wednesday issued one of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history, a rule designed to ensure that the majority of new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States are all-electric or hybrids by 2032.

Cars and other forms of transportation are, together, the largest single source of carbon emissions generated by the United States, pollution that is driving climate change and that helped to make 2023 the hottest year in recorded history. Electric vehicles are central to President Biden’s strategy to confront global warming, which calls for cutting the nation’s emissions in half by the end of this decade. But E.V.s have also become politicized and are becoming an issue in the 2024 presidential campaign.

“Three years ago, I set an ambitious target: that half of all new cars and trucks sold in 2030 would be zero-emission,” said Mr. Biden in a statement. “Together, we’ve made historic progress. Hundreds of new expanded factories across the country. Hundreds of billions in private investment and thousands of good-paying union jobs. And we’ll meet my goal for 2030 and race forward in the years ahead.”

The rule increasingly limits the amount of pollution allowed from tailpipes over time so that, by 2032, more than half the new cars sold in the United States would most likely be zero-emissions vehicles in order for carmakers to meet the standards.

That would avoid more than seven billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the next 30 years, according to the E.P.A. That’s the equivalent of removing a year’s worth of all the greenhouse gases generated by the United States, the country that has historically pumped the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The regulation would provide nearly $100 billion in annual net benefits to society, according to the agency, including $13 billion of annual public health benefits thanks to improved air quality.

The standards would also save the average American driver about $6,000 in reduced fuel and maintenance over the life of a vehicle, the E.P.A. estimated.

The auto emissions rule is the most impactful of four major climate regulations from the Biden administration, including restrictions on emissions from power plants, trucks and methane leaks from oil and gas wells. The rules come on top of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the biggest climate law in the nation’s history, which is providing at least $370 billion in federal incentives to support clean energy, including tax credits to buyers of electric vehicles.

The policies are intended to help the country meet Mr. Biden’s target of cutting U.S. greenhouse emissions in half by 2030 and eliminating them by 2050. Climate scientists say all major economies must do the same if the world is to avert the most deadly and costly effects of climate change.

“These standards form what we see as a historic climate grand slam for the Biden administration,” said Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, a political action committee that aims to advance environmental causes.

Mr. Bapna’s group has calculated that the four regulations, combined with the Inflation Reduction Act, would reduce the nation’s greenhouse emissions 42 percent by 2030, getting the country most of the way to Mr. Biden’s 2030 target.

Get in Losers we're going to save the planet.

[posttexasstressdisorder]

If you want to see what the GOP has in store for the rest of America, visit the Old South

Thom Hartmann

June 27, 2024 5:42AM ET

Photo by Miltiadis Fragkidis on Unsplash

Today is the first Biden-Trump debate and many Americans are wondering how each will articulate their ideas for the future of America.

Republicans have a very specific economic vision for the future of our country, although they rarely talk about it in plain language: they want to make the rest of America look and function just like Mississippi. Including the racism: that’s a feature, not a bug.

It’s called the “Southern Economic Development Model” (SEDM) and has been at the core of GOP economic strategy ever since the days of Ronald Reagan. While they don’t use those words to describe their plan, and neither did the authors of Project 2025, this model is foundational to conservative economic theory and has been since the days of slavery.

The SEDM explicitly works to:

— Maintain a permanent economic underclass of people living on the edge of poverty, — Rigidify racial and gender barriers to class mobility to lock in women and people of color, — Provide a low-cost labor force to employers,

— Prevent unions or any other advocates for workers’ rights to function, — Shift the tax burden to the working poor and what’s left of the middle class while keeping taxes on the morbidly rich extremely low, — Protect the privileges, power, and wealth of the (mostly white and male) economic overclass, — Ghettoize public education and raise the cost of college to make social and economic mobility difficult, — Empower and subsidize churches to take over public welfare functions like food, housing, and care for indigent people, — Allow corporations to increase profits by dumping their waste products into the air and water, — Subsidize those industries that financially support the political power structure, and, — Heavily use actual slave labor.

For hardcore policy wonks, the Economic Policy Institute(EPI) did a deep dive into the SEDM last month: here’s how it works in summary.

Republicans claim that by offering low-cost non-union labor and little to no regulatory oversight to massive corporations, they’re able to “attract business to the region.” This, they promise, will cause (paraphrasing President Kennedy out of context) “a rising tide that lifts all boats.”

Somehow, though, the only people who own boats that rise are those of the business owners and senior executives. The permanent economic underclass is key to maintaining this system with its roots in the old plantation system; that’s why Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina have no minimum wage, Georgia’s is $5.15/hour, and most other GOP states use the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour and $2.13/hour for tipped workers.

It’s thus no coincidence that ten out of the 20 Republican-run states that only use the federal minimum wage are in the Old South.

Anti-union or “right to work for less” efforts and laws are another key to the SEDM; the failed unionization effort last month at the Alabama Mercedes factory was a key victory for the GOP. Unions, after all, balance the power relationship between management and workers; promote higher wages and benefits; support workplace and product safety regulations; advance racial and gender equality; boost social mobility; and have historically been the most effective force for creating a healthy middle class.

Unionization, however, is antithetical to creating and maintaining a permanent economic underclass, which is why, as EPI notes, “while union coverage rates stand at 11.2% nationally, rates in 2023 were as low as 3.0% in South Carolina, 3.3% in North Carolina, 5.2% in Louisiana, and 5.4% in Texas and Georgia.”

Unions also make wage theft more difficult, essentially forcing government to defend workers who’ve been ripped off by their employers. That’s why Florida doesn’t even have a Department of Labor (it was dismantled by Republican Governor Jeb Bush in 2002), and the DOLs in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina no longer bother to enforce wage theft laws or recover stolen money for workers.

Another key to the SEDM is to end regulation of corporate “externalities,” a fancy word for the pollution that most governments in the developed world require corporations to pay to prevent or clean up. “Cancer Alley” is probably the most famous example of this at work: that stretch from west Texas to New Orleans has more than 200 refineries and chemical plants pouring poison into the air resulting in downwind communities having a 7 to 21 times greater exposure to these substances. And high rates of cancer: Southern corporate profits are boosted by sick people.

Between 2008 and 2018, EPI documents, funding for state environmental agencies was “cut [in Texas and Louisiana] by 35.2% and 34.8% respectively.… Funding was down by 33.7% in North Carolina, 32.8% in Delaware, 20.8% in Georgia, 20.3% in Tennessee, and 10% in Alabama.”

To keep income taxes low on the very wealthy, the SEDM calls for shifting as much of the taxpaying responsibility away from high-income individuals and dumping it instead on the working poor and middle class. This is done by either ending or gutting the income tax (Texas, Florida, and Tennessee have no income tax) and shifting to sales tax, property taxes, fees, and fines.

Nationally, for example, sales taxes provide 34.4% of state and local revenue, but in the SEDM states that burden is radically shifted to consumers: Tennessee, for example, gets 56.6% of their revenue from sales tax, Louisiana 53.3%, Florida 50.9%, Arkansas 49.6%, Alabama 48%, and Mississippi 45.5%. Fees for registering cars, obtaining drivers’ and professional licenses, tolls, traffic and other fines, and permits for home improvements all add to the load carried by average working people.

Republicans argue that keeping taxes low on “job creators” encourages them to “create more jobs,” but that old canard hasn’t really been taken seriously by anybody since Reagan first rolled it out in 1981. It does work to fill their money bins, though, and helps cover the cost of their (tax deductible) private jets, clubs, and yachts.

Another way the SEDM maintains a low-wage workforce is by preventing young people from getting the kind of good education that would enable them to move up and out of their economic and social class. Voucher systems to gut public education, villainization of unionized teachers and librarians, and increasing college tuition all work together to maintain high levels of functional illiteracy. Fifty-four percent of Americans have a literacy rate that doesn’t exceed sixth grade, with the nation’s worst illiteracy mostly in the Old South.

Imposing this limitation against economic mobility on women is also vital to the SEDM. Southern states are famous for their lack of female representation in state legislatures (West Virginia 13%, Tennessee 14%, Mississippi and South Carolina 15%, Alabama and Louisiana 18%), and the states that have most aggressively limited access to abortion and reproductive healthcare (designed to keep women out of the workplace and dependent on men) are entirely Republican-controlled.

Perhaps the most important part of the SEDM pushed by Republicans and Project 2025 is gutting the social safety net. Wealthy rightwingers have complained since FDR’s New Deal of the 1930s that transferring wealth from them to poor and middle-class people is socialism, the first step toward a complete communist tyranny in the United States. It’s an article of faith for today’s GOP.

Weekly unemployment benefits, for example, are lowest in “Mississippi ($235), Alabama ($275), Florida ($275), Louisiana ($275), Tennessee ($275), South Carolina ($326), and North Carolina ($350)” with Southern states setting the maximum number of weeks you can draw benefits at 12 in Florida, North Carolina, and Kentucky, 14 in Alabama and Georgia, and a mere 16 weeks in Oklahoma and Arkansas.

While only 3.3% of children in the Northeast lack health insurance, for the Southern states that number more than doubles to 7.7%. Ten states using the SEDM still refuse to expand Medicaid to cover all state residents living and working in poverty, including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas.

The main benefit to employers of this weak social safety net is that workers are increasingly desperate for wages — any sort of wages — and even the paltriest of benefits to keep their heads above water economically. As a result, they’re far more likely to tolerate exploitative workplace conditions, underpaid work, and wage theft.

Finally, the SEDM makes aggressive use of the 13th Amendment’s legalization of slavery. That’s not a metaphor: the Amendment says, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” [emphasis added]

That “except as punishment for crime” is the key. While Iceland’s and Japan’s incarceration rates are 36 for every 100,000 people, Finland and Norway come in at 51, Ireland and Canada at 88, there are 664 people in prison in America for every 100,000 people. No other developed country even comes close, because no other developed country also allows legalized slavery under color of law.

Fully 800,000 (out of a total 1.2 million prisoners) Americans are currently held in conditions of slave labor in American jails and prisons, most working for private prison corporations that profitably insource work and unfairly compete against normal American companies. Particularly in the South, this workforce is largely Black and Hispanic.

As the ACLU documented for the EPI, “The vast majority of work done by prisoners in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas is unpaid.” Literal slave labor, in other words. It’s a international scandal, but it’s also an important part of this development model that was, after all, first grounded in chattel slavery.

The Christian white supremacist roots of the SEDM worldview are best summed up by the lobbyist and head of the Southern Committee to Uphold the Constitution, Vance Muse — the inventor of the modern “right to work for less” model and advocate for the Southern Economic Development Model — who famously proclaimed in 1944, just days after Arkansas and Florida became the first states to adopt his anti-union legislation, that it was all about keeping Blacks and Jews in their places to protect the power and privileges of wealthy white people.

So, if you want to see what Republicans have in mind for the rest of America if Trump or another Republican becomes president and they can hold onto Congress, just visit the Old South. Or, as today’s MAGA GOP would call it, “the New Model.”