Tag Archives: regulation

Who’s In Charge?

Posted on by
Reply

Is it a company’s leadership, ultimately hired by the company’s owners, the shareholders. or is it a couple of proxy advisers, whose income depends on being the ones consulted over management decisions?

Exxon Mobil, having grown fed up with the anti-business climate of New York, has put before its owners, its shareholders, the proposition that the company should go out from New York, move to Texas, and redomicile there.

The two largest Proxy Advisors aggregate to somewhere between 90% and 97% of the American proxy advisory market. The two, Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, are pushing those shareholders to reject the move.

(Aside: they’re not even American companies. Glass Lewis, although headquartered in San Francisco, is owned by Peloton Capital Management, a Canadian company. Institutional Shareholder Services, although headquartered in Rockville, MD, is owned by the German company, Deutsche Börse AG.)

Their motive is obvious. Texas, for instance,

lets companies domiciled in the state require that investors hold at least $1 million in market value, or 3% of voting shares, for six months to submit shareholder proposals. Companies can also require shareholders to own at least 3% of shares to bring lawsuits for breaches of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.

A successful move to Texas would encourage lots more companies to leave States with high business taxes, excessive regulatory environments, and especially relevant to this context, a heavily advisor-permissive suite of regulations. This is a significant reduction in the “advisors'” ability to…influence…the companies they choose to target.

Who runs, then, Exxon Mobil: the shareholders or Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services?

Disregarding our Constitution

Posted on by
Reply

Here they go again. This time it’s Virginia’s Progressive-Democratic Party-dominated legislature and Governor who think our Constitution is just something to be used or ignored at Party convenience and that, in the immortal words of a Leftist “journalist,” isn’t binding on anything and it’s hard to understand, being over 100 years old (or, as he later “corrected,” more than 200 years old.

This time, it’s Party’s disregard of our 2nd Amendment and of Supreme Court rulings holding that keeping and bearing Arms is an individual inalienable right of which a well regulated militia is a beneficiary not the purpose and that the keeping and bearing cannot (not just may not) be regulated except in consistence with our nation’s traditions. That last includes, explicitly, firearms that are in widespread lawful use—these cannot (not just may not) be restricted from our possession of them.

Virginia’s reigning Party has banned what it’s pleased to call “assault” weapons along with the 30-round magazines that are an integral part of the semi-automatic rifles that are subject to the ban. This is in direct and deliberate violation of our 2nd Amendment and is a nose-thumb at our Supreme Court.

This miscarriage is now in both Federal and State courts, looking to get this blatantly unlawful Party gun grab tossed. It should, in the end, be tossed, but honest citizens shouldn’t have to spend the time or treasure going through this.

It’s time to remove this lawless Party from the halls of political power at the next election and in subsequent election cycles.

Pick One, Ace

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-President Barack Obama (D) had this to say on the Supreme Court’s nearly total elimination of racist racial gerrymandering with its Louisiana v Callais ruling:

Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities. And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach.

Our voting rules can explicitly favor one group of American voters over other groups of American voters, which favoring can come only at the direct expense of those others, explicitly deprecating those voters’ votes as such favoritism does.

Or our voting rules can, finally, recognize that all American voters are just that—American voters—and so entirely equal under law, even voting law.

As Obama said as the Democratic Party’s keynote speaker at its 2004 National Convention,

[T]here’s not a liberal America and a conservative America—there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.

That includes voters in America.

This sort of duplicity is all too typical of today’s Progressive-Democratic Party politicians.

The Second Best Way

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors have a way to get us average Americans to save more for our retirements, proposed at the end of its worry (justified) about unintended consequences associated with President Donald Trump’s (R) retirement saving program for our lowest income citizens.

The best way to get Americans to save more for retirement is by bringing down inflation and growing real wages.

The second best way, though, and one with more immediate effect, is to eliminate the contribution caps on our existing retirement programs–401(k), Traditional IRA, and Roth IRA. These are purely arbitrary limits with no fiscal meaning. They were set in order to get Progressive-Democrat buy-in and so actual passage. The limits were demanded by Party in order to cap the more successful and deny them the retirement capacity their greater success otherwise would have facilitated.

It’s time to be done with that.

Couldn’t Possibly Be

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that more than 3 million folks once getting “Federal food aid” have stopped getting that aid. This is due, primarily, to tighter work requirement restrictions:

Under the new rules, able-bodied adults aged 18 to 64 without children under 14 must work, volunteer or participate in approved job-training programs for at least 80 hours a month. The previous age limit for work requirements was 54, and allowed exemptions for adults with children under 18.

Naturally, the Left is engaging in its manufactured angst over this.

Colleen Heflin, a professor at Syracuse University who studies food insecurity, said larger state drops like Arizona’s were “beyond anything we’ve ever seen.” Heflin said she was concerned it would result in vulnerable Americans not getting enough to eat.
“These large state drops in SNAP caseloads represent a fundamental restructuring of the food-assistance safety net,” she said. “We should expect to see a surge in food insecurity and its related negative consequences at new levels.”

Of course. The large drop couldn’t possibly be an indication of the bloat in the program and the number of ineligible folks taking the aid “beyond anything we’ve ever seen.”

And there’s Bruce Meyer, a University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy Professor, who accidentally let that cat out of the Leftists’ bag:

Most of the people who are getting food stamps are needy. When you’re cutting that many people, you’re probably cutting into some people who really do need the benefits.

It certainly should be “most,” and it should be far more than just that. Only cutting “some” who really need the benefits is a strong indicator of the amount of bloat that’s been present.