proposed

Design plan for Trump’s proposed Washington arch is approved by key federal agency

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts on Thursday approved the design for the triumphal arch that President Trump wants built at an entrance to the nation’s capital.

Commissioners, all of whom were appointed by Trump, approved the design despite overwhelming opposition from the public. Approval is a key step in the project’s process.

The proposed arch is one of several projects the Republican president is pursuing alongside a White House ballroom to leave his imprint on Washington.

He has said some of his other projects, such as adding a blue coating to the interior of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, will beautify the city in time for July 4 celebrations of America’s 250th birthday.

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts approved the concept for the arch at its monthly meeting in April.

As presented to the federal agency, the arch itself would stand 250 feet tall from its base to a torch held aloft by a Lady Liberty-like figure on top of the structure. The statue would be flanked on top by two eagles and guarded at the base by four lions — all gilded. The phrases “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All” would be inscribed in gold lettering atop either side of the monument.

A public observation deck on top would provide 360-degree views of the surroundings.

The commission’s vice chairman, architect James McCrery II, said in April that he preferred the arch without the figures on top. Removing them would significantly reduce the arch’s height by about 80 feet. Critics of the project, including an overwhelming number of people who submitted public comment in April, said the arch would be taller than any other monument in the capital city and dominate the skyline.

At a height of 250 feet, the arch would dwarf the Lincoln Memorial, which is 99 feet tall, and be close to half the height of the Washington Monument, an obelisk that is about 555 feet tall.

McCrery also recommended that the lions on the base be removed because that animal is “not a beast natural to the North American continent.” And he objected to plans for an underground tunnel for pedestrians to get to the arch, which would be built on a traffic circle between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.

Preliminary surveys and testing of the site began last week.

A group of veterans and a historian have sued the Trump administration in federal court to block construction on grounds that the arch would disrupt the sightline between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House at Arlington National Cemetery, among other reasons.

Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have argued that Washington is the only major Western world capital without such an arch. Burgum’s department includes the National Park Service, which manages the plot where Trump wants to put the arch.

Trump’s rehab of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is also the subject of a court challenge brought by the Cultural Landscape Foundation, which said the administration’s moves to repaint the bottom of the Reflecting Pool blue without first undergoing relevant reviews ran afoul of federal preservation laws governing historic sites.

The nonprofit group argued in a lawsuit filed last week that the changes at the Reflecting Pool are part of Trump’s broader effort to push through dramatic renovations in Washington without proper reviews and undermine the tone of the area.

A hearing in the case was scheduled for Thursday afternoon in federal court in Washington.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

SEC’s Proposed Semiannual Reporting Rule Meets Resistance

Receiving less frequent finanical information worries investors of all stripes.

Investors do not like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) week-old proposed rule on semiannual financial reporting. They really don’t like it.

A vast majority, 92%, of comment letters received by the SEC regarding the proposed rule opposed it. Only 6% favored the rule’s adoption, while 2% simply wanted additional details regarding how the rule would operate.

The proposed rule, a pet project of the Trump administration, is likely to be implemented, according to experts.

“There is a strong indication it will happen,” David Bartz, partner and co-head of capital markets and securities regulation at law firm K&L Gates, told Global Finance. “The administration has been looking into this. It’s something that SEC Chairman[Paul] Atkins has been a big proponent of. I think that it’s highly unlikely that it will become an official rule.”

Pros and Cons

The current proposal would permit public companies to elect semiannual reporting instead of the standard quarterly reporting. The SEC estimates that companies incur an average of $330,000 in compliance costs for three Form 10-Q quarterly reports. Alternatively, submitting one Form 10-S semiannual filing costs around $198,000. Savings could come from external professional fees, auditor reviews, data tagging costs, and investor engagement costs, according to a K&L Gates blog post.

The most common concern cited by the rule commentators, however, is a decrease in the amount of available financial information investors receive. This would lead to greater reliance on interim guidance, reduce the chance of finding corporate malfeasance, increase market volatility, and require the revamping of investment and trading strategies.

Material Disclosures

In markets that already have semiannual financial reporting, like the EU and Australia, companies must release material information promptly unless there is a specific business case not to, such as entering merger negotiations or procuring a contract that has not been finalized, said Marc Steinberg, the Radford Professor of Law at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law.

In the U.S. market, there is no duty to disclose unless it is required under Form 8-K, which must be filed within four business days, or if the company has already spoken about the matter, he added. Information that does not rise to the level of an 8-K disclosure, like the loss of a major contract, can be held until the next quarterly report.

“With some companies going to a semiannual report, it means a company could keep the news of a loss of a major contract embargoed for over six months, which is clearly material to investors,” said Steinberg.

The chance that the SEC will change the rule is slim, according to Bartz. “It’s been floated for several months now, so I think it has probably been pretty well vetted. There will probably be minimal changes to the rule once it’s officially approved.”

Next Step

Once the rule’s comment period ends on July 6, the staff of the SEC’s Division of Corporate Finance will review the comments before drafting a proposal, which will work its way up through various offices before it is presented to the Commission for review and a vote, said Steinberg.

Source link

Chávez the Radical XXII: ‘What Is Being Proposed Is a Return to the Oil Opening’

The imposition of Venezuelan state sovereignty over the oil industry was one of the pillars of the Bolivarian Revolution from the get-go.

This edition of Tatuy Tv’s “Chávez the Radical” compiles several speeches by Comandante Chávez where he discusses the multiple policies that had subordinated the Venezuelan oil industry to transnational corporate interests and their nefarious consequences.

Issues like state ownership, royalties, taxes, and international arbitration are as relevant as ever today as the country undergoes major pro-business reforms in the oil sector.

Source: Tatuy Tv

Source link

Trump’s proposed ‘Golden Dome’ estimated to cost $1.2 trillion, far more than he initially said

President Trump’s plan to put weapons in space — pitched as a “Golden Dome for America” missile defense program — is estimated to cost $1.2 trillion over a 20 year period, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a far heftier sum than the initial $175 billion price tag he gave last year.

The nonpartisan CBO report, published Tuesday, is described as an analysis that reflects “one illustrative approach rather than an estimate of a specific Administration proposal.”

The futuristic system was ordered by Trump in an executive order during his first week in office. He said then that he expected the system to be “fully operational before the end of my term,” which wraps up in January 2029.

“Over the past 40 years, rather than lessening, the threat from next-generation strategic weapons has become more intense and complex with the development by peer and near-peer adversaries of next-generation delivery systems,” Trump said in his executive order, justifying the need for the missile defense system.

The CBO’s estimates are in part based on a lack of details from the Defense Department about what and how many systems will be deployed, “making it impossible to estimate the long term cost” of the Golden Dome system, the report says.

The concept for the missile system is at least partly inspired by Israel’s multitiered defenses, often collectively referred to as the “Iron Dome,” which played a key role in defending it from rocket and missile fire from Iran and allied militant groups as it prosecutes the war on Iran alongside the U.S.

The U.S. Golden Dome is envisioned to include ground and space-based capabilities able to detect, intercept and stop missiles at all major stages of a potential attack.

Congress has already approved roughly $24 billion for the missile defense initiative through Republicans’ massive tax and spending measure signed into law last summer.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-OR, who requested the estimate from the CBO, said in response to the report that the missile defense project is “nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans.”

Last May, the president said the Golden Dome would cost $175 billion. The CBO last year estimated that just the space-based components of the Golden Dome could cost as much as $542 billion over the next 20 years.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

L.A. County’s proposed healthcare sales tax election voter guide

p]:text-cms-story-body-color-text clearfix”>

Supervisor Kathryn Barger was the only supervisor against it. She pointed to the fact that the tax was a “general” tax, meaning the money won’t be earmarked for healthcare costs. That means politicians have final say over how the money gets spent rather than voters, she said.

Some cities within L.A. County say they’re also rattled over the tax, unleashing a stream of opposition letters against the tax. The California Contract Cities Assn. argues a sales tax hike would “disproportionately burden the very residents the County seeks to protect.” Shoppers near the county line, they warn, likely would start crossing it to shop.

Some of these cities say they have the trust issues when it comes to county ballot measures. When voters approved Measure B in 2002 to fund the county’s trauma center network, an audit years later found the county couldn’t account for whether the money actually had been spent on emergency medical services. And some cities feel they never got their fair share of funds from Measure H, the homelessness services tax measure passed in 2017.

Source link