is fifa biased
is fifa biased
On the first day of the new legislative session, Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, D-Anaheim, introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (ACA 1). The proposal would double the amount of state funds that could be placed in the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) from 10% to 20% of the annual budget. The ostensible reason for the increase is to address the very real problem of revenue volatility. Because California is overly reliant on high income earners who generate massive amounts of capital gains and stock option funds in boom years, it is vulnerable to big drop-offs in revenue during the bust years. Indeed, revenue volatility has been such a large problem that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger created the California Commission for the 21st Century Economy to come up with solutions. Regrettably, while there was a broad consensus that something should be done about the boom and bust cycle, the commissioners could not agree on what to do about it. The goal of placing more funds in reserve because of volatility makes sense, if it can be accomplished without violating the letter and the spirit of Gann spending limit. Unfortunately, ACA 1, in its current form does just that. Here’s how. Just a year after Proposition 13’s passage in 1978, California voters approved the Gann spending limit which, like Prop. 13, sought to restrain the size and growth of government. But unlike Proposition 13, which was a direct limit on taxation, Gann attempted to limit government spending. It limited the growth of state and local government expenditures to a base-year level adjusted annually to reflect increases in population and inflation. Initially, the Gann limit performed as designed and resulted in a modest rebate to taxpayers in 1987. But subsequent measures backed by special interests weakened the Gann limit by creating exceptions for education and transportation spending as well as substituting a far more generous inflation factor. Ironically, after these changes, most public finance observers – including yours truly – wrongfully assumed that California would never again bump up against the limit. But a big surplus in fiscal year 2022-23 put the state on the brink of reaching that limit. While that collision was briefly avoided due to COVID-19, California once again is confronted with a Gann issue that can no longer be ignored. For taxpayers, the best outcome would be to let the Gann limit run its course and return money to taxpayers “by a revision of tax rates or fee schedules within the next two subsequent fiscal years.” Cal.Const., Art. XIIIB, Section 2(a)(2). This is consistent with the plain language of Gann and is more than warranted given California’s heavy tax burden. Related Articles Opinion Columnists | End the IRS’s worldwide tax grab Opinion Columnists | Mass deportations are bad for everyone’s liberties Opinion Columnists | The draconian penalties that Hunter Biden escaped affect people whose fathers can’t save them Opinion Columnists | California politicians suddenly discover inflation in aftermath of election Opinion Columnists | How California ranks as the most active political state But ACA 1 might prevent taxpayer refunds due to the change in treatment of transfers into the budget stabilization account. Under Gann, the state and local governments may create reserve accounts, like the BSA, but those transfers are subject to Gann’s spending limits. On the other hand, spending out of a reserve account is not so limited. As currently drafted, it appears that ACA 1 would exempt transfers out of the reserve account – currently permissible under Gann – but would also exempt appropriations into the BSA: Section (i) provides, “Transfers to the Budget Stabilization Account pursuant to this section do not constitute appropriations subject to limitation as defined in Article XIII B.” This appears to create a fund into which unlimited funds can be appropriated, guaranteeing that taxpayers will never get a refund of their tax dollars. There are better ways to address revenue volatility without injury to the goal of the Gann Spending Limit, which was enacted to provide a modicum of spending restraint in a state that doesn’t have any. California taxpayers need something more than a rainy day fund that’s all slush. Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
BY MELISSA GOLDIN Social media users are misrepresenting a report released Thursday by the Justice Department inspector general’s office, falsely claiming that it’s proof the FBI orchestrated the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. The watchdog report examined a number of areas, including whether major intelligence failures preceded the riot and whether the FBI in some way provoked the violence. Claims spreading online focus on the report’s finding that 26 FBI informants were in Washington for election-related protests on Jan. 6, including three who had been tasked with traveling to the city to report on others who were potentially planning to attend the events. Although 17 of those informants either entered the Capitol or a restricted area around the building during the riot, none of the 26 total informants were authorized to do so by the bureau, according to the report. Nor were they authorized to otherwise break the law or encourage others to do so. Here’s a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: A December 2024 report released by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General is proof that the Jan. 6 Capitol riot was a setup by the FBI. THE FACTS: That’s false. The report found that no undercover FBI employees were at the riot on Jan. 6 and that none of the bureau’s informants were authorized to participate. Informants, also known as confidential human sources, work with the FBI to provide information, but are not on the bureau’s payroll. Undercover agents are employed by the FBI. According to the report, 26 informants were in Washington on Jan. 6 in connection with the day’s events. FBI field offices only informed the Washington Field Office or FBI headquarters of five informants that were to be in the field on Jan. 6. Of the total 26 informants, four entered the Capitol during the riot and an additional 13 entered a restricted area around the Capitol. But none were authorized to do so by the FBI, nor were they given permission to break other laws or encourage others to do the same. The remaining nine informants did not engage in any illegal activities. None of the 17 informants who entered the Capitol or surrounding restricted area have been prosecuted, the report says. A footnote states that after reviewing a draft of the report, the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington said that it “generally has not charged those individuals whose only crime on January 6, 2021 was to enter restricted grounds surrounding the Capitol, which has resulted in the Office declining to charge hundreds of individuals; and we have treated the CHSs consistent with this approach.” The assistant special agent in charge of the Washington Field Office’s counterterrorism division told the inspector general’s office that he “denied a request from an FBI office to have an undercover employee engage in investigative activity on January 6.” He, along with then-Washington Field Office Assistant Director in Charge Steven D’Antuono, said that FBI policy prohibits undercover employees at First Amendment-protected events without investigative authority. Many social media users drew false conclusions from the report’s findings. “JANUARY 6th WAS A SETUP!” reads one X post that had received more than 11,400 likes and shares as of Friday. “New inspector general report shows that 26 FBI/DOJ confidential sources were in the crowd on January 6th, and some of them went into the Capitol and restricted areas. Is it a coincidence that Wray put in his resignation notice yesterday? TREASON!” The mention of Wray’s resignation refers to FBI Director Christopher Wray’s announcement Wednesday that he plans to resign at the end of President Joe Biden’s term in January. Other users highlighted the fact that there were 26 FBI informants in Washington on Jan. 6, but omitted key information about the findings of the report. These claims echo a fringe conspiracy theory advanced by some Republicans in Congress that the FBI played a role in instigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021, when rioters determined to overturn Republican Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden stormed the Capitol in a violent clash with police. The report knocks that theory down. Wray called such theories “ludicrous” at a congressional hearing last year. Asked for comment on the false claims spreading online, Stephanie Logan, a spokesperson for the inspector general’s office, pointed The Associated Press to a press release about the report. In addition to its findings about the the FBI’s involvement on Jan. 6, the report said that the FBI, in an action its now-deputy director described as a “basic step that was missed,” failed to canvass informants across all 56 of its field offices for any relevant intelligence ahead of time. That was a step, the report concluded, “that could have helped the FBI and its law enforcement partners with their preparations in advance of January 6.” However, it did credit the bureau for preparing for the possibility of violence and for trying to identify known “domestic terrorism subjects” who planned to come to Washington that day. The FBI said in a letter responding to the report that it accepts the inspection general’s recommendation “regarding potential process improvements for future events.”
December Is A Tough Month In Which To Turn Bearish5 Book Recommendations By Fran Lebowitz
Meet the 12 CFP Title Contenders: No. 12 ClemsonBy Jim Rossman, Tribune News Service (TNS) Everyone seems to be listening to something. I’m not sure what they’re listening to, because they all seem to be wearing headphones. I suppose they’re all listening to their favorite podcast or just their playlists. Here are a few gift suggestions for headphones that’ll make anything sound better. I’ve listed the retail pricing, but don’t be surprised if you find them on sale. We’ve all tried traditional earbuds. They can sound good if the fit is correct. The SoundCore AreoFit 2 ($99.99, soundcore.com) don’t fit inside your ear canal. Instead, they sit on the outside of your ear. The battery sits behind your ear, much like a hearing aid. The speaker is attached by a sturdy, yet flexible cable. The only adjustment is on the speaker end – it clicks to adjust the angle of the speaker to sit directly over your ear canal. The fact that they don’t insert into your ears means you can still hear the outside world, so you are not so isolated. These are great for jogging or biking. The sound is really nice. The full range of sound comes in very clearly and the form factor is comfortable to wear, even for hours at a time. There are four microphones, so your voice sounds clear on phone calls. They have an IP55 rating, so they can withstand water spashing, sweat or dust. They can also connect to more than one device, so you can keep them paired to your phone and laptop and switch easily between them. The AeroFit 2 can play for 10 hours on a charge. They live in a battery case that can keep them charged for more than 40 hours. The charging case can power up via a USB-C port or a Qi wireless charger. They are available in white, blue, green or black. The Soundcore C40i ($99.99, soundcore.com) is another fun option in a non-traditional form factor. Instead of going inside or even over the top your ears, the C40i earbuds are u-shaped and they clip on the sides of your ears. They are unlike anything I’ve ever tried, and they sounded surprisingly good once you get them in the right spot. They are a bit flexible, in that you can pull them apart slightly to get them in the right spot. Once you let go, they gently grip your earlobe. I must admit I was a little self-conscious when I first started wearing the C40i earbuds, as they look a bit like earrings. The fit is interesting. The end with the speaker sits in front of your ear canal and the end with the battery and action button goes behind your ear. You can adjust them on your ear until the sound becomes clear. It’ll be obvious to your ears when you have them adjusted correctly. If your earlobes are thin, there are some rubber sleeves that can help with the fit. You want them to be snug, but not to the point where they are pinching your ears. There is a customizable button on the back of each earbud for call and music control. They are on the small side, so the battery life is seven hours before needing to return to the case for a charge. The case can charge them twice more before it needs recharging. The case charges via USB-C cable, but it is too small for wireless chargers. The earbuds have a 12mm x 17mm oval shaped driver and the sound quality is very good. Voice quality on phone calls also surprised me with its clarity. They sync with the Soundcore phone app to let you assign the button commands and tweak the sound settings. They also can pair to two devices at once. Frequent flyers know all about noise canceling over-the-ear headphones. These headphones usually have active noise canceling, which uses microphones to listen to the ambient noise and reduce it before it can get to your ears. What I’m noticing is more and more people wearing these during workouts or just walking around. The Baseus Bowie 30 Max noise canceling headphones ($79.99, baseus.com) are fairly generic looking headphones, but their performance is incredible for the price. Baseus says the Bowie 30s can eliminate 96 percent of noise, but that actual noise cancellation will vary depending on the ambient noise level. I can tell you the noise canceling is impressive. There is also a transparency mode that lets in outside sounds so you can have a conversation with someone without taking them off. You can pair them to the free Baseus phone app to unlock some additional features including spatial acoustics, bass enhancement and low-latency mode. These connect to your phone or PC wirelessly via Bluetooth or wired with an included 3.5mm cable. They last an impressive 65 hours on a charge without noise canceling or 50 hours with noise canceling enabled. The ear cups and piece that fits over the top of your head are nicely padded and the entire headset folds up to take up less room in your bag. ©2024 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
