• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1644
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации80
      • Показать ещё
      Люди628
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы545
      • Показать ещё
      Формат7
      Разное663
      • Показать ещё
      Издания91
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели62
      • Показать ещё
Выбор редакции
09 декабря, 17:44

New rupee notes seized in India black money raids

Politicians linked to hoarding in clampdown on ill-gotten gains and tax-dodging

08 декабря, 20:59

Kellyanne Conway Slips Up, Implies Trump White House Will Be Terrible Place For Women

Kellyanne Conway suggested on Wednesday that she would turn down an official role in the White House because of the strain it would put on her family. Conway, who managed Donald Trump’s campaign, added that she would continue to advise the president-elect. Conway did not, as some twisted media reports claimed, say that mothers generally shouldn’t work at the White House. Nor did she play the “woman card,” as one opinion columnist in The Washington Post tried to argue. But what she did say at “Women Rule,” a conference hosted by Politico, signals that the environment for women in the Trump administration will be difficult. Men are the ones who rule in Trumpland, which adheres to “traditional” male-female roles when it comes to work and family. Modern notions don’t seem to apply. Conway, who turns 50 on Inauguration Day, has four children under the age of 12 at home and a husband who works full time as a litigator at a prestigious law firm. Her choice makes sense. It’s also possible her comment was just an elegant ― and classic ― way to dump Trump. Leaving a job to “spend more time with family” is a time-honored politician dodge. Conway noted on Wednesday that Trump works all the time. “It’s a mystery to us when he actually sleeps,” she said, according to Politico. And although there are more and more opportunities for women in government and politics, she said there are limits to what women can do if they have kids. Then things get even more sad. From Politico: She recalled discussions about what role she could play in Trump’s administration, remarking that senior campaign officials would say, “I know you have four kids but …” “I said there’s nothing that comes after the ‘but’ that makes any sense to me so don’t even try. Like what is the but?” she said. “But they’ll eat Cheerios for the rest of the day? Nobody will brush their teeth again until I get home?” “And I do politely mention to them the question isn’t would you take the job, the male sitting across from me who’s going to take a big job in the White House. The question is would you want your wife to,” she continued. “Would you want the mother of children to? You really see their entire visage change. It’s like, ‘Oh, no, they wouldn’t want their wife to take that job.’ But it’s, it’s all good.” It’s not all good, Kellyanne! There are other ways these senior officials could’ve fielded your question. They could have said: “Kellyanne, if my wife had the opportunity to work in a powerful position in the White House, I’d scale back my career for a few years and support her and take on more of the burden at home. Maybe your husband can do that.” Or, maybe they could say, “Kellyanne, you’ve been a key member of the team. We will make sure you get the flexibility to make this work.” Instead, their apparently uniform reaction makes it clear that in Trumpland, the burden of parenting always falls on the mother. She will always be the one to pull back at work. The idea that a mother could perhaps share parenting responsibilities with a partner or, god forbid, look to social policy for support is not on the table. There is only one table. Men sit at it. The end. This way of thinking is at the core of why U.S. women haven’t achieved anything resembling equality in the workplace. On average, women still make 80 cents for every $1 earned by a man. Women ― who make up half the population ― hold only 20 percent of the seats in the U.S. Congress. And while women hold nearly 52 percent of professional jobs in the U.S., there are only 21 female CEOs in the Fortune 500. That’s 4 percent. Trumpland thinking is what the Obama administration had been working to change both with policy ― efforts on equal pay and paid leave, for starters ― and within the White House itself. Conway’s comments are a flashing red sign ― a state essentially banning abortion because of the new administration is another ― that winter is coming for the women of this country.  Of course, this shouldn’t be surprising. But it is, a little. Yes, Trump is the guy who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy because he can. And he has insulted women’s looks at every turn. Based on some of his older interviews, he also seems to think parenting is women’s work. “There’s a lot of women out there that demand that the husband act like the wife, and you know, there’s a lot of husbands that listen to that,” he said in a 2005 radio interview that BuzzFeed unearthed.  “I mean, I won’t do anything to take care of them. I’ll supply funds and she’ll take care of the kids. It’s not like I’m gonna be walking the kids down Central Park,” Trump said in an interview with Howard Stern that same year. Yet, Trump has also tried to portray himself as someone who advances women in the workplace. His website has a page titled “Donald J. Trump’s History of Empowering Women,” which was posted in October and offers anecdotes about how Trump encouraged and supported the women in his organization. His daughter Ivanka Trump also likes to market herself as a champion for #womenwhowork ― or at least women who make enough money to buy office apparel from her clothing line. And it was heartening that Conway, the first woman to run a Republican presidential campaign, had such a high-profile role. But her comments Wednesday were deflating. Conway lives in the wealthy enclave of Alpine, New Jersey, with her kids and her husband, a partner and litigator at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. It’s safe to assume he works nonstop. Her hesitation to do the same makes complete sense. Working in the White House is not a 9-to-5 gig. Anne-Marie Slaughter, who worked in the State Department for Hillary Clinton, wrote powerfully about her struggle to make that work in her famous essay “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.” Anyone with young children can tell you raising kids is a full-time job. A draining, once-in-a lifetime, crucially important job. And if you want to work and raise a family ― or if you need to work, as so many American women do ―  you have to make hard choices. That’s particularly true in the U.S. We live in a country that offers working families essentially no support. No paid maternity leave. No paid sick leave. A school day that ends in the middle of the workday. A horrifying daycare system. Countries that offer these benefits see the percentage of women entering the workforce go up. The U.S. is pretty low on the list of countries with high female labor force participation. The lack of support helps reinforce the gender pay gap, particularly at the top where the difference between what men and women earn is widest. These were not big issues for Trump on the trail, although Ivanka mentioned them at the Republican National Convention. Crucially, the workplace was structured by and for men ― although it’s changing somewhat ― and is rooted in the understanding that men will give their all to their job while someone else watches the kids. “Someone else” is typically the mom, of course. Now, the Obama administration understood this and made these issues a priority. There was a real effort at the policy level to advance the U.S. in terms of supporting working families. And although working parents in the White House didn’t have it easy, they were supported. President Barack Obama himself famously stopped working at 6:30 p.m. most nights so he could eat dinner with his kids. Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama and an outspoken advocate for changing how we think about work and family, later told the audience at the Politico event that she saw Conway backstage and tried to change her mind. “There are a lot of women who did raise young women in the White House,” Jarrett said. “I think tone starts at the top.” Yep. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

08 декабря, 20:59

Kellyanne Conway Slips Up, Implies Trump White House Will Be Terrible Place For Women

Kellyanne Conway suggested on Wednesday that she would turn down an official role in the White House because of the strain it would put on her family. Conway, who managed Donald Trump’s campaign, added that she would continue to advise the president-elect. Conway did not, as some twisted media reports claimed, say that mothers generally shouldn’t work at the White House. Nor did she play the “woman card,” as one opinion columnist in The Washington Post tried to argue. But what she did say at “Women Rule,” a conference hosted by Politico, signals that the environment for women in the Trump administration will be difficult. Men are the ones who rule in Trumpland, which adheres to “traditional” male-female roles when it comes to work and family. Modern notions don’t seem to apply. Conway, who turns 50 on Inauguration Day, has four children under the age of 12 at home and a husband who works full time as a litigator at a prestigious law firm. Her choice makes sense. It’s also possible her comment was just an elegant ― and classic ― way to dump Trump. Leaving a job to “spend more time with family” is a time-honored politician dodge. Conway noted on Wednesday that Trump works all the time. “It’s a mystery to us when he actually sleeps,” she said, according to Politico. And although there are more and more opportunities for women in government and politics, she said there are limits to what women can do if they have kids. Then things get even more sad. From Politico: She recalled discussions about what role she could play in Trump’s administration, remarking that senior campaign officials would say, “I know you have four kids but …” “I said there’s nothing that comes after the ‘but’ that makes any sense to me so don’t even try. Like what is the but?” she said. “But they’ll eat Cheerios for the rest of the day? Nobody will brush their teeth again until I get home?” “And I do politely mention to them the question isn’t would you take the job, the male sitting across from me who’s going to take a big job in the White House. The question is would you want your wife to,” she continued. “Would you want the mother of children to? You really see their entire visage change. It’s like, ‘Oh, no, they wouldn’t want their wife to take that job.’ But it’s, it’s all good.” It’s not all good, Kellyanne! There are other ways these senior officials could’ve fielded your question. They could have said: “Kellyanne, if my wife had the opportunity to work in a powerful position in the White House, I’d scale back my career for a few years and support her and take on more of the burden at home. Maybe your husband can do that.” Or, maybe they could say, “Kellyanne, you’ve been a key member of the team. We will make sure you get the flexibility to make this work.” Instead, their apparently uniform reaction makes it clear that in Trumpland, the burden of parenting always falls on the mother. She will always be the one to pull back at work. The idea that a mother could perhaps share parenting responsibilities with a partner or, god forbid, look to social policy for support is not on the table. There is only one table. Men sit at it. The end. This way of thinking is at the core of why U.S. women haven’t achieved anything resembling equality in the workplace. On average, women still make 80 cents for every $1 earned by a man. Women ― who make up half the population ― hold only 20 percent of the seats in the U.S. Congress. And while women hold nearly 52 percent of professional jobs in the U.S., there are only 21 female CEOs in the Fortune 500. That’s 4 percent. Trumpland thinking is what the Obama administration had been working to change both with policy ― efforts on equal pay and paid leave, for starters ― and within the White House itself. Conway’s comments are a flashing red sign ― a state essentially banning abortion because of the new administration is another ― that winter is coming for the women of this country.  Of course, this shouldn’t be surprising. But it is, a little. Yes, Trump is the guy who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy because he can. And he has insulted women’s looks at every turn. Based on some of his older interviews, he also seems to think parenting is women’s work. “There’s a lot of women out there that demand that the husband act like the wife, and you know, there’s a lot of husbands that listen to that,” he said in a 2005 radio interview that BuzzFeed unearthed.  “I mean, I won’t do anything to take care of them. I’ll supply funds and she’ll take care of the kids. It’s not like I’m gonna be walking the kids down Central Park,” Trump said in an interview with Howard Stern that same year. Yet, Trump has also tried to portray himself as someone who advances women in the workplace. His website has a page titled “Donald J. Trump’s History of Empowering Women,” which was posted in October and offers anecdotes about how Trump encouraged and supported the women in his organization. His daughter Ivanka Trump also likes to market herself as a champion for #womenwhowork ― or at least women who make enough money to buy office apparel from her clothing line. And it was heartening that Conway, the first woman to run a Republican presidential campaign, had such a high-profile role. But her comments Wednesday were deflating. Conway lives in the wealthy enclave of Alpine, New Jersey, with her kids and her husband, a partner and litigator at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. It’s safe to assume he works nonstop. Her hesitation to do the same makes complete sense. Working in the White House is not a 9-to-5 gig. Anne-Marie Slaughter, who worked in the State Department for Hillary Clinton, wrote powerfully about her struggle to make that work in her famous essay “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.” Anyone with young children can tell you raising kids is a full-time job. A draining, once-in-a lifetime, crucially important job. And if you want to work and raise a family ― or if you need to work, as so many American women do ―  you have to make hard choices. That’s particularly true in the U.S. We live in a country that offers working families essentially no support. No paid maternity leave. No paid sick leave. A school day that ends in the middle of the workday. A horrifying daycare system. Countries that offer these benefits see the percentage of women entering the workforce go up. The U.S. is pretty low on the list of countries with high female labor force participation. The lack of support helps reinforce the gender pay gap, particularly at the top where the difference between what men and women earn is widest. These were not big issues for Trump on the trail, although Ivanka mentioned them at the Republican National Convention. Crucially, the workplace was structured by and for men ― although it’s changing somewhat ― and is rooted in the understanding that men will give their all to their job while someone else watches the kids. “Someone else” is typically the mom, of course. Now, the Obama administration understood this and made these issues a priority. There was a real effort at the policy level to advance the U.S. in terms of supporting working families. And although working parents in the White House didn’t have it easy, they were supported. President Barack Obama himself famously stopped working at 6:30 p.m. most nights so he could eat dinner with his kids. Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama and an outspoken advocate for changing how we think about work and family, later told the audience at the Politico event that she saw Conway backstage and tried to change her mind. “There are a lot of women who did raise young women in the White House,” Jarrett said. “I think tone starts at the top.” Yep. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

08 декабря, 17:13

Look at Dodge & Cox Income Fund (DODIX)

Dodge & Cox Income Fund (DODIX) seeks a high and stable rate of current income, consistent with long-term preservation of capital.

08 декабря, 17:09

Why Invest in Dodge & Cox Stock Fund (DODGX)?

Dodge & Cox Stock Fund (DODGX) seeks long-term growth of principal and income.

Выбор редакции
08 декабря, 13:03

В Dodge впервые приделали масл-кару полный привод

Компания Dodge представила давно обещанную модификацию своего суперкара Challenger, которая впервые в истории американских "мускулистых" купе получила систему полного привода. Однако, действительно полным привод у Challenger будет лишь по необходимости.

Выбор редакции
08 декабря, 10:13

Dodge сделал первый в мире маслкар с полным приводом

Бренд Dodge представил первый в мире маслкар с полноприводной трансмиссией. Колесную формулу 4x4 получило купе Challenger, а вместе с ней и индекс GT

08 декабря, 02:57

6 Games Free to PlayStation Plus Members in December 2016

Do you have PlayStation Plus? If so, you have six free games waiting for you in the PlayStation Store in December. Be sure to download them all.

Выбор редакции
07 декабря, 23:40

Dodge сделал первый в мире полноприводный маслкар

Американцы представили модель Dodge Challenger GT AWD.

07 декабря, 23:26

How One Simple Question Landed Me a Job I Didn't Want

What is the craziest thing you have ever said (or done) at an interview and still got the job? originally appeared on Quora - the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights. Answer by Gil Yehuda, technology strategist, on Quora: In response to a job offer, I said no. As a result, I got the job. This goes back a few years: I was interested in a particular job, and read the description carefully. I saw it had five job specifications, covering a wide range of skills in my field. I thought they might need two people to do the job they described. After some good phone interviews, I was invited to a full day of on-site interviews. I first met with the hiring manager, and then with a few people related to the group. The last interview was with the recruiter. The first interview with the hiring manager (CTO-ish role) went well, but it had a strange moment near the end. We spoke about the job and then he asked if I had questions. I asked about the five items; they were diverse, so which was the most important part of the job? He looked at the job spec sheet and answered that #5 was the essential job, the other four were much less relevant. I asked, why is the most important part of the job listed last? Usually a list like this would have the most important item listed first. Moreover, #1 and #5 implied a very different skill profile. He seemed annoyed at me for asking the question, and reiterated that #5 was the job, the rest was not as important. The next five interviews went very smoothly, and things were looking promising. When each interviewer asked if I had questions, I asked the same question, out of curiosity: "If you and I asked the CTO which of these five items are most important for this job, what do you think he'd say?" Each one answered #1 is the primary job. Then I said "I actually asked the CTO, he said #5 was the essential part of the job. What do you think that means?"  Their reactions were very interesting. One said "No, I meant #5..."  Another said "Oh that's not right, I need to meet with him and correct this." Fascinating indeed! Seemingly, I revealed a disconnect between the CTO and the team about the job. The last interview was with the recruiter. We clicked. We had a frank conversation about the company and about the issues I uncovered. She told me that feedback on my interviews was positive. But she did not have a good answer about the role clarity. Yet they still wanted to make me an offer. The truth is, I really wanted (needed) this job. But I said: I'm sorry, I don't think I can take the job if the company doesn't know what the job is. You need to figure out what you want before you make an offer. I don't think anyone could succeed in a job where the very role is in dispute. She responded. The reason they wanted to make me the offer was that I was the only person to see what was going on. It was a new role and they didn't fully understand the requirements themselves, but apparently I read the situation in a way they were unable to see, and that's what they needed. They wanted me to take the job in order to help figure out what the job should be. She asked me what salary range I was looking for. I thought, this makes no sense. Yes, I want the job, but the risk of failure is high since the job was ill defined. Given the risk, how would I know if they are serious about having me figure this out for them? So I said "If you make me an offer I can't refuse, then I won't be able to refuse it." She came back fifteen minutes later with an offer I could not, and did not refuse. No regrets either. You should also know that good ideas come from good inspiration, namely good mentors. I would like to acknowledge coaches and mentors who provided me with guidance and sound advice in my various job search activities over my career. In particular thank you to Dan Shepard, at the Essex Partners Senior Executive Career Management and Transition Coaching firm and Mark Newall, SVP at Keystone Associates for showing me how to think more clearly. My trust in your advice has paid off in multiples. This question originally appeared on Quora - the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions: Anecdotes: What is the most difficult thing you have ever convinced someone of? Job Interviews: How do I know I'm taking the right job? Experiences in Life: How did you foil/dodge someone else's attempt to cheat or deceive you? -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

07 декабря, 21:24

How to Write a Resume So It Gets Noticed by Computers

Want to beat the computers and filters, but aren't sure how to write a resume that will do it? Start where Sun Tzu would have: Figure out your adversary.

07 декабря, 17:53

Let Us Move Past These "Shocks". Citizens Must Organize, Governments Must Engage

And so the year begins to close with much to reflect upon. Did we expect all these "crises" we're now facing - and if not, why? What caused them? How do we engage with them now? Personally, I was surprised at the collective shock at the year's big moments - Brexit, for example, or the US presidential election. We view these events through a Northern prism. Globally, these moments I feel were just the latest in a series of events stemming from a thirty-year economic orthodoxy. In fact, many of us from the South still in the struggle for democracy and human rights have long wondered why so many in the North took so long to see the political capture in their own systems that pushed back ordinary people - until now. We must link together, globalize even, our world's similar struggles - those within rich countries, and those between the rich North and developing South. From Durban to Dallas, our economic model marches to the beat of those with extreme wealth. It has enabled 62 billionaires to accumulate as much wealth as the poorest 3.6 billion people (watch this space for our latest research come January). Decades of progress in the long fight against poverty and gender inequality are being held back. Pointing to Oxfam's statistic, President Obama was right to say that "A world in which 1% of humanity controls as much wealth as the other 99% will never be stable". This is a world in which big business and wealthy elites are now very openly writing political rules to their favour: be it lowering their own taxes, or forcing austerity, whilst expecting bailouts as we saw in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis. Some of Oxfam's most recent research shows how the most powerful US companies collectively received $130 in tax breaks for every $1 spent on lobbying. I find the late US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' words here to be prophetic: "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we cannot have both". Faced with this, governments face a choice: either reduce inequality, or reduce democracy. Around the world they are repeatedly opting for the latter. The International Trade Union Confederation, for example, finds a 22% increase in restrictions on the rights of voice and assembly in its latest survey of 141 countries - that is developed and developing nations. Within this increasingly fraught, political and contested space, the power of people is being decimated. Citizens must dig deep to amplify their voices together. I fiercely believe that current events only heighten the importance of civic space, for citizens to be able to advocate and influence. Amidst these rising anxieties, we would be wise to learn from the triumphs by citizens around the world. These victories are happening and often do not make headlines. Take the 'Civil Society Platform on the IMF Bailout' in Ghana, of which Oxfam was a part. We won the arguments to ensure the IMF's bailout did not cut but instead increased social spending - by 30%! The Open Government Partnership (OGP) finds its unique calling in such times. In the five years since its inception, OGP has engineered ambitious and innovative ways to make governments more open, accountable and responsive to citizens. 70 countries - and counting - are signed up to OGP commitments which they can be held account to. It is a riposte to the spiralling distrust in institutions. This week's Paris OGP summit for governments and civil society leaders, billed as a "COP for democracies", is the perfect stimulus for genuine discussion - one that must not tinker at the margins but honestly seek to address the causes of inequality. Its legacy must prosper well after Paris. Fundamental is the need for governments to protect the space for citizens to claim their rights, organize and express themselves. The people standing up most strongly for our democracies should be celebrated not prosecuted - be it those countless human rights defenders who defend all our rights, or the brave whistle-blowers who expose tax dodging. Vested interests thrive in the shadows. Citizens need to know how their countries are being run so that they can hold governments and big business to account. The government of Kenya, like Tanzania, recently passed its Access to Information Bill. This marks progress; it is a commitment from Kenya's OGP 'National Action Plan' fulfilled. Yet it is ever more apparent to me that by themselves, civic space and transparency are not enough. They do not fight inequality; people do. And so the process of public policy itself requires recalibrating - putting people at their centre - to deliver better policies, continually improve services, and build trust. Governments, steered by their commitment to OGP, must reimagine the way in which they foster citizen participation in decision-making. It is essential that they engage more meaningfully with the voices of marginalized and least represented people, for example women who are unable to participate in policy consultations because they do most of the unpaid care work. OGP has proven that better engagement pays off: the more civil society is involved, the likelier that policy commitments will be ambitious and delivered. In Costa Rica, civil society leveraged OGP to secure government commitments on institutionalizing consultations for any activity affecting indigenous populations. Today, 20 government agencies are engaged in this same mechanism. I am particularly eager for governments to also lock-in policies that respond to the real needs of citizens. Some examples of "feedback loops" exist already: a citizen complaints portal in Bojonegoro in Indonesia - an OGP pioneer at subnational-level - that insists governments must respond to citizens within five days, to "Check My School" in the Philippines where parents provide real-time feedback on whether teachers and textbooks show up. "Check My Services" in Mongolia sees citizens score over 84 public services - that affect over 45,000 citizens- from universities and hospitals to street-lights and waste disposal. These exciting initiatives shift power to people. Change is necessarily complex and, even at best, drawn out. But in many ways, inch by inch, policy by policy, the work of OGP - and the movement for open, responsive, accountable governments - distils democracies to what they should be. Let us continue to rewrite the rules so they work for all of us, not an elite few. -- This post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post and the Open Government Partnership, on the occasion of the 2016 OGP Global Summit in Paris . The Open Government Partnership is an international coalition of over 70 governments and thousands of civil society organizations working on open government initiatives. This series aims to highlight some key issues. For more information about OGP, visit http://www.opengovpartnership.org, #OGP16 Follow Winnie Byanyima at: LinkedIn, Twitter Photo: Citizens of Kalambaogo, a town north of Burkina Faso's capital of Ouagadougou. Credit: Andy Hall / Oxfam -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
07 декабря, 17:41

Sirius XM & AT&T Collaborate to Deliver 4G LTE Connectivity

Sirius XM (SIRI) recently announced that its subsidiary, Sirius XM Connected Vehicle Services, has joined forces with AT&T Inc. (T) to provide 4G LTE connectivity.

07 декабря, 16:00

Despair and Hope in Trump’s America

Americans are optimistic about the communities they live in—but not their nation. Why?

07 декабря, 14:32

Why Mayors Should Run From Walmart

Sometimes it pays to look a gift horse in the mouth. Even a cheap gift horse. In October of 2007, a group called Good Jobs First released a report titled Rolling Back Property Tax Payments, which charged that Walmart methodically plotted to lower its property taxes by challenging the assessments of its stores and distribution centers. The group said Walmart "drains vitally needed funds from communities by regularly challenging the valuation put on its properties by public officials. When the company succeeds in one of these challenges, it diminishes the funds available to pay for education, police and fire protection, and other essential services provided by local governments." Based on a national sample of Walmart stores and distribution centers as of the beginning of 2005, Walmart had filed assessment challenges at more than one-third of its facilities around the country. At many facilities there were appeals over multiple years. Good Jobs First estimated that Walmart had filed more than 2,100 property tax challenges nationwide. "These systematic property tax challenges are part of a larger pattern of state and local tax avoidance by Wal-Mart," GJF noted. "They are consistent with the company's reported use of a real estate investment trust gimmick to dodge income taxes in many states." The Good Jobs First report found that the Walmart had won a total of about $30 million from those appeals over a decade. Although Walmart's campaign to rollback its property tax payments has been blunted in some states, the company has won big tax cuts in certain individual communities. In 2004, for example, Walmart asked that the assessment of its distribution center in Tomah, Wisconsin be lowered from $43.6 million to $23 million. The city settled the matter by agreeing to drop the assessment to $31.4 million and refunding the retailer more than $300,000 for each of three years -- a total of $949,000 in lost revenues to the city. This week, a report by Fox 6 News in Milwaukee, Wisconsin concluded that "local municipalities are losing millions each year, and thousands of dollars are being spent on legal fees" due to property tax abatements filed by big box stores like Walmart, Target, Nordstrom and Lowe's. The Mayor of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, Kathleen Ehley, went so far as to say that big box stores were bad business for local cities and towns. "It would make me very hesitant to support a big box coming in," Mayor Ehley admitted. Her community is facing no less than 12 big box property tax appeals. Wautatosa has spent $1.1 million in legal fees to fight these appeals over the last 4 years. Wauwatosa has been sued by Target, Lowe's and Firestone, using a scam called "the dark store theory." Big box stores are pressuring local assessors to value their property the same as a closed store. "Now all of a sudden,' one assessor told Fox 6, "just for property tax purposes, we have to consider using sales of vacant or abandoned locations as evidence of value for good-thriving locations. If municipalities begin lowering values because of this dark store strategy, there will be a shift in taxes." Lawyers for the big box stores argue that operating stores should be assessed like similar-sized stores that have closed down. In Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, Target built a store a decade ago for $16 million, but now the retailer wants the village to value it at $6.5 million, roughly half of what the assessors think its worth. The typical residential taxpayer in Pleasant Prairie would see their taxes rise by $900 if Target wins its case. It is absurd for big box stores to steal from local communities by saying a store that is performing well should be taxed at the same market value as an empty store. When a Walmart shuts down and goes on the market, it will sell for a lot less. Sometimes they have to give the store away and take a tax write-off. Sometimes towns have to tear the store down at their expense. But a live store is worth much more than a dead one. "Intuitively it doesn't make any sense," an official with the League of Wisconsin Municipalities told Fox 6. In locations where Walmart or other big boxes rent their space, the rent charged to an open store is much higher than a dead store. The landlord charges the store a flat base rent, plus a rent tied to the level of sales at the location. Higher sales, higher rent. In cases where the big box owns the building, the value of their property should include a market factor based on sales. When the store is closed, only then should their tax bill be lowered due to reduced sales output. The city of Wauwatosa is under siege. Local officials are draining property tax revenues defending their assessments. Companies like Walmart sucker local communities into providing a candy store of incentives -- like infrastructure grants, tax incremental financing, and sales tax rebates -- and then turn around and appeal their property tax assessments. Most Mayors in America think they've won a gift horse when Walmart rolls into town. But inside the gift horse is a tax abatement. "People do need to be aware of this," Mayor Kathleen Ehley warns. Al Norman is the founder of Sprawl-Busters. He has been helping communities fight big box sprawl since 1993. His latest book is Occupy Walmart. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

07 декабря, 14:32

Why Mayors Should Run From Walmart

Sometimes it pays to look a gift horse in the mouth. Even a cheap gift horse. In October of 2007, a group called Good Jobs First released a report titled Rolling Back Property Tax Payments, which charged that Walmart methodically plotted to lower its property taxes by challenging the assessments of its stores and distribution centers. The group said Walmart "drains vitally needed funds from communities by regularly challenging the valuation put on its properties by public officials. When the company succeeds in one of these challenges, it diminishes the funds available to pay for education, police and fire protection, and other essential services provided by local governments." Based on a national sample of Walmart stores and distribution centers as of the beginning of 2005, Walmart had filed assessment challenges at more than one-third of its facilities around the country. At many facilities there were appeals over multiple years. Good Jobs First estimated that Walmart had filed more than 2,100 property tax challenges nationwide. "These systematic property tax challenges are part of a larger pattern of state and local tax avoidance by Wal-Mart," GJF noted. "They are consistent with the company's reported use of a real estate investment trust gimmick to dodge income taxes in many states." The Good Jobs First report found that the Walmart had won a total of about $30 million from those appeals over a decade. Although Walmart's campaign to rollback its property tax payments has been blunted in some states, the company has won big tax cuts in certain individual communities. In 2004, for example, Walmart asked that the assessment of its distribution center in Tomah, Wisconsin be lowered from $43.6 million to $23 million. The city settled the matter by agreeing to drop the assessment to $31.4 million and refunding the retailer more than $300,000 for each of three years -- a total of $949,000 in lost revenues to the city. This week, a report by Fox 6 News in Milwaukee, Wisconsin concluded that "local municipalities are losing millions each year, and thousands of dollars are being spent on legal fees" due to property tax abatements filed by big box stores like Walmart, Target, Nordstrom and Lowe's. The Mayor of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, Kathleen Ehley, went so far as to say that big box stores were bad business for local cities and towns. "It would make me very hesitant to support a big box coming in," Mayor Ehley admitted. Her community is facing no less than 12 big box property tax appeals. Wautatosa has spent $1.1 million in legal fees to fight these appeals over the last 4 years. Wauwatosa has been sued by Target, Lowe's and Firestone, using a scam called "the dark store theory." Big box stores are pressuring local assessors to value their property the same as a closed store. "Now all of a sudden,' one assessor told Fox 6, "just for property tax purposes, we have to consider using sales of vacant or abandoned locations as evidence of value for good-thriving locations. If municipalities begin lowering values because of this dark store strategy, there will be a shift in taxes." Lawyers for the big box stores argue that operating stores should be assessed like similar-sized stores that have closed down. In Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, Target built a store a decade ago for $16 million, but now the retailer wants the village to value it at $6.5 million, roughly half of what the assessors think its worth. The typical residential taxpayer in Pleasant Prairie would see their taxes rise by $900 if Target wins its case. It is absurd for big box stores to steal from local communities by saying a store that is performing well should be taxed at the same market value as an empty store. When a Walmart shuts down and goes on the market, it will sell for a lot less. Sometimes they have to give the store away and take a tax write-off. Sometimes towns have to tear the store down at their expense. But a live store is worth much more than a dead one. "Intuitively it doesn't make any sense," an official with the League of Wisconsin Municipalities told Fox 6. In locations where Walmart or other big boxes rent their space, the rent charged to an open store is much higher than a dead store. The landlord charges the store a flat base rent, plus a rent tied to the level of sales at the location. Higher sales, higher rent. In cases where the big box owns the building, the value of their property should include a market factor based on sales. When the store is closed, only then should their tax bill be lowered due to reduced sales output. The city of Wauwatosa is under siege. Local officials are draining property tax revenues defending their assessments. Companies like Walmart sucker local communities into providing a candy store of incentives -- like infrastructure grants, tax incremental financing, and sales tax rebates -- and then turn around and appeal their property tax assessments. Most Mayors in America think they've won a gift horse when Walmart rolls into town. But inside the gift horse is a tax abatement. "People do need to be aware of this," Mayor Kathleen Ehley warns. Al Norman is the founder of Sprawl-Busters. He has been helping communities fight big box sprawl since 1993. His latest book is Occupy Walmart. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

07 декабря, 01:52

House rebukes Freedom Caucus effort to oust IRS chief

The House squelched a resolution to impeach IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in a bipartisan rebuke of conservative House Freedom Caucus efforts. Lawmakers voted 342-72 to kick the resolution back to the Judiciary Committee, averting a floor vote on outright impeachment after outgoing House Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan introduced a privileged resolution on Tuesday to impeach Koskinen .Had the impeachment push succeeded, Koskinen would have been the first appointed executive-branch official to meet that fate in 140 years. Some top Republicans suggested that impeachment was unnecessary, given that the IRS chief serves at the pleasure of the president. Koskinen, whose term ends in November 2017, has said he’ll step aside if Trump doesn’t want him in the role, and GOP lawmakers said Tuesday they expected that to be the case.“He’d be wise to tender his resignation now,” said House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas). “He doesn’t fit in with an open, transparent Trump administration. Clearly, we need a fresh start at the IRS.” “Koskinen has no credibility left as commissioner, because of his actions and behavior and conduct so far,” Brady added. “I certainly don’t have confidence him.”A spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi scorched the impeachment effort.“The House Freedom Caucus is doing President-elect Trump’s dirty work for him. Breaking from their own leadership and regular order, the Republicans’ latest quest to impeach the IRS commissioner comes as the president-elect remains under audit by the IRS,” Caroline Behringer said.The IRS chief has been under fire by conservatives for his handling of the aftermath of the IRS' targeting of conservative groups, which exploded into the headlines in spring of 2013. Koskinen, who was not IRS commissioner at the time, has denied allegations that he misled Congress about the controversy.Jordan introduced the privileged resolution just before 5 p.m., starting a 48-hour clock for a full House vote on the measure. A vote was expected Thursday, but Democrats quickly moved to table the resolution, setting Tuesday's votes in motion. The drama unfolded much the way it did in September, when the prospect of Republican moderates siding with Democrats against impeachment forced Jordan to pull the effort in a last-minute deal with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who agreed to hold a hearing on the matter if conservatives held off on forcing a floor vote until after the election. Judiciary members — and many rank-and-file Republicans — fretted that ousting Koskinen would set a bad precedent, lowering the standard for impeachment in the future. The Constitution lists “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” as impeachable offenses. But the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a matter of dispute. Still, some GOP lawmakers tried to downplay the tensions between the GOP leaders who have tried for months to avoid a messy impeachment fight and the Freedom Caucus members who pushed the issue to the brink.“The charges against the commissioner are serious, and they need to be evaluated at a committee level,” said Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), the chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee that oversees the IRS. “I don’t think the vote was dismissive of the claims. But it was to say to move towards impeachment means it’s got to be vetted at the committee level.”“I think timing is less important than a good process that would study those charges,” he added.Conservatives charge Koskinen obstructed justice by allowing subpoenaed documents to be destroyed and waiting four months to correct his testimony to Congress that all relevant documents were being preserved. “The right to pursue impeachment is an indispensable power that Congress has for holding government officials accountable to the American people. Under his watch, with subpoenas and preservation orders in place, John Koskinen not only allowed 422 back-up tapes containing as many as 24,000 Lois Lerner emails to be destroyed — he then failed to tell Congress about it in a timely manner,” Jordan said Tuesday as he gave notice on his resolution.Koskinen has said he believed he was testifying truthfully when he told Congress the agency would preserve and turn over requested records. He said last month that he doubted conservative hardliners would have the votes to oust him. “There are a handful of the Freedom Caucus members who are, you know, pretty far out on a limb that they think impeachment has to happen,” Koskinen told POLITICO at an early November conference. “It was pretty clear when they put the privileged resolution in that there was going to be a motion to table that would have passed. … I haven’t spent much time worrying about that.”The last appointed executive-branch official to be impeached was Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876, for allegedly receiving improper payments related to a Native American territory trading post. The Senate acquitted him.

07 декабря, 00:55

Pence aide denies security clearance was requested for Flynn Jr.

Vice President-elect Mike Pence reluctantly and indirectly confirmed on Tuesday that a security clearance was requested for Michael Flynn Jr., the son of President-elect Donald Trump's incoming national security adviser.In an interview with CNN, Pence repeatedly dodged host Jake Tapper’s questions about whether Flynn Jr. was requested for a clearance.“I said this morning that his [retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s] son had no involvement in the transition, but I have talked to General Flynn, and his son was helping him a bit with scheduling and administrative items, but that's no longer the case.” Pence said, referring to comments earlier in the day when he said Flynn Jr. wasn’t involved with the transition “whatsoever."After those remarks, reporters noted that Flynn Jr. had been assigned a transition email address and was spotted going in and out of Trump Tower.As Tapper accused Pence of downplaying Flynn Jr.’s role, he insisted that Pence “must have been aware” that a security clearance was requested for him. Pence repeatedly replied by saying that he was aware Flynn Jr. was helping his father.“Well, whatever the appropriate paperwork was to assist him in that regard, Jake, I'm sure was taking place,” Pence eventually conceded after being asked the same question a total of seven times.Emails sent to Flynn Jr.'s transition email address bounced back on Tuesday.Flynn Jr.'s apparent firing comes after he repeatedly circulated conspiracy theories online.One such conspiracy theory was “Pizza Gate," the cause of an armed assault on a pizza restaurant in Northwest Washington, D.C. Stories on fringe websites and social media networks had claimed, falsely, that Hillary Clinton is involved in running a child sex trafficking ring out of the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria.A man suspected of firing a weapon inside the restaurant, who claimed he thought he was rescuing child sex slaves, surrendered to authorities and was arrested on Sunday.

06 декабря, 20:52

TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME: Trump’s election stole my desire to look for a partner. “Once it was…

TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME: Trump’s election stole my desire to look for a partner. “Once it was clear that Donald Trump would be president instead of Hillary Clinton, I felt sick to my stomach. I wanted to gather my children in bed with me and cling to them like we would if thunder and lightning were […]

06 декабря, 19:09

Ryan defends Trump on Taiwan

At a news conference, the speaker also dodges a question on the president-elect's call for punitive tariffs.

09 июня 2015, 19:50

Пикапы Chevrolet. История начинается.

Пикапы - самые американские и самые, на мой взгляд, интересные автомобили. Я их люблю и хочу о них рассказать. А чтобы меня не обвиняли в "монетизации" сделаю это на примере марки, больше не представленной на нашем рынке. Не думаю, что GM хотя бы поблагодарит меня за эту публикацию.По некоторым данным, несколько самых первых пикапов Chevrolet были произведены еще в 1914 году. Они предназначались не для продажи, а для перевозки всевозможных грузов по территории автомобильного завода. так сказать, для внутреннего пользования! Понято, что ни один такой автомобиль не сохранился. Первые серийные пикапы были построены в городе Флинт, штат Мичиган, 22 ноября 1916-го и отгружены с завода 2 декабря того же года. Эта дата считается официальным выходом Chevrolet на рынок легких грузовиков. Машина, которую вы видите на фото, это современная реплика одного из первых пикапов Chevrolet 490.1918 модельный год ознаменовался выпуском сразу двух грузовых моделей. Обе они представляли собой грузовое шасси с металлическим капотом, под которым был установлен четырехцилиндровый бензиновый двигатель. В то время покупатели обычно сами оснащали автомобили деревянными кабинами, грузовыми платформами или кузовами, в зависимости от своих потребностей. На картинке вверху, пассажирская модификация модели Light Delivery. Я где-то читал, что в те годы за такой автомобиль просили $595. Немало, ведь это были другие, полновесные доллары, не те, что сейчас... Более тяжелая модель, построенная на той же базе, носила индекс T (Truck). Она отличалась усиленным шасси и ее грузоподъемность достигала одной тонны - вдвое больше, чем у Chevrolet 490. На машину устанавливался 37-сильный двигатель. Его мощности хватало, чтобы грузовик развивал скорость до 40 км/ч. В 1918 году чтобы купить такое транспортное средство нужно было выложить более 1000 долларов!В 1930 году на смену грузовым шасси пришли полноценные пикапы заводского производства. Компания Chevrolet приобрела кузовную фирму Martin-Parry и начала сама производить пикапы со стальной кабиной и установленным на заводе кузовом. Сердцем новых пикапов стал рядный шестицилиндровый двигатель. Его конструктивная особенность заключалась в верхнем расположении клапанов. Такие моторы стали характерной чертой практически всех пикапов Chevrolet следующих десятилетий.На фотографии модель Chevrolet Roadster Delivery, который впервые "засветился" в музыкальной кинокомедии "Follow Thru", вышедшей на экраны в 1930-м году. Видимо, в этом фильме что-то было связанно с гольфом, не случайно же сидящие в кузове актрисы держат в руках клюшки!К середине 1930-х полутонные автомобили с заводскими стальными кузовами стали основой рынка пикапов, где фирмы Mack, Studebaker и International конкурировали с Chevrolet, GMC, Ford и Dodge.В середине 1930-х годов, когда экономика США начала восстанавливаться после Великой депрессии компания Chevrolet вывела на рынок новые модели легких грузовиков обтекаемой аэродинамической формы, которая до сих пор считается эталоном дизайна той эпохи. Помимо прочих усовершенствований, модели образца 1937 года обрели усиленный кузов и более мощный 78-сильный двигатель.Этот пикап Chevrolet образа 1937 года с честью выдержал изнурительное путешествие длиной 10 245 миль по Соединенным Штатам, проходившее под наблюдением Американской автомобильной ассоциации (ААА). Кстати, средний расход топлива составил 11,3 л/100 км - неплохо даже по современным меркам!В начале 1947 года Chevrolet представила легкие грузовики серии Advanced Design – первые среди всех автомобилей корпорации General Motors, полностью обновленные после Второй мировой войны. Замысел рекламщиков и производителей состоял в том, чтобы сделать утилитарные машины более яркими, выразительными и привлекательными для потребителей. Дизайнеры компании, действую по команде маркетологов, шире расставили фары, установив их на крылья, а также подчеркнули решетку радиатора пятью горизонтальными планками. Получилось неплохо! На фото - полутонный пикап Chevrolet Advanced Design 1947-го модельного года.Машины, выполненные в этой, удачно найденной, стилистике, продержались на конвейере с 1947 по 1953 год, а затем, в начале 1955 года, был обновлен дизайн передней части (на фото вверху).После выхода на рынок моделей серии Advanced Design предпочтения американских покупателей стало постепенно смещаться в сторону пикапов. Если перед войной соотношение между продажей пассажирских автомобилей и легких грузовиков составляло примерно 4:1, то 1950 году уже 2,5:1. Пикапы стремительно набирали популярность! В середине 1950-х годов, полностью восстановившаяся после войны Америка переживала потребительский бум. Покупатели стали еще более разборчивыми и требовательными к дизайну и техническим характеристикам автомобилей. В связи с этим, в 1955 году Chevrolet представила публике совершенно новую линейку пикапов Task Force, дизайн которых перекликался с престижной легковой моделью Chevrolet Bel Air. А в качестве опции на пикапы стали устанавливать более мощные двигатели V8.В 1955 году была выпущена специальная версия пикапа Cameo Carrier. Это была уже не "рабочая лошадка", а стильный автомобиль, более уместный на подъездной дорожке к роскошному особняку, чем на ферме или заводской площадке. Можно считать, что именно с этого момента большие американские пикапы перестали быть чисто утилитарными транспортными средствами. Модель Cameo Carrier производился относительно недолго, всего лишь до 1958 года. Но ей на смену уже шли новые еще более роскошные пикапы. 1959 год. Красавица Chevrolet El Camino просто очаровала публику эффектным дизайном с характерными для того времени «килями» как у легковых моделей Chevrolet и функциональностью полутонного пикапа. Впрочем, грузить в такую машину сено и солому вредил кто-то стал. "Фермерской" эта машина могла быть только на постановочных рекламных фотографиях а в повседневном использовании ее практичность, как говорится, оставляла желать... Вскоре это поняли и покупатели. Восторги поутихли и производство El Camino по-быстрому свернули, для того... чтобы возродить через три года! Но уже в новом качестве. С мощным двигателем V8 под капотом Chevrolet El Camino 1964 модельного года стала одним из первых маскл-каров компании. Еще за два года, до появления легендарного Camaro! А в 1968 году появилась спортивная версия пикапа. Ее назвали El Camino Super Sport. С тех пор все самые "заряженные" модели Chevrolet стали носить индекс SS.Но я как-то забежал вперед. Помимо El Camino в 60-е годы встречались еще более причудливые пикапы. Например Chevrolet Corvair Rampside 1961-го года.Интереснейшей особенностью этой модели стал второй откидывающийся борт, находящийся сбоку, как дверь у микроавтобуса. Да и внешне пикап Chevrolet Corvair здорово напоминал автобус. А еще он был заднемоторным - шестицилиндровый опоенный двигатель находился под полом. Конструкция получилась слишком уж оригинальной и покупатели ее не оценили. Источники утверждают, что таких машин было выпущено всего-то около 800 штук. Тем не менее, своей страницы в истории пикапов Chevrolet модель Corvair достойна!На этом мы пока остановимся. Продолжение следует!