• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Показатели108
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы956
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации142
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Рейтинг Doing Business
25 июня, 12:00

11 epic fails in Hollywood movies that are related to Russia

1. Independence Day (1996) The world faces imminent destruction, and Americans are watching news from Russia, but it's still called “Soviet Central News,” even though the USSR collapsed in 1991. (15 min 1 sec) Independence Day. / Screenshot from film Strange map of Russia. Novosibirsk gets extra letters (Novosyoyrsk), Moscow moved to the Urals, and instead of St. Petersburg we see Petrograd – the city's name in 1914-1924. Independence Day. / Screenshot from film Russian military headquarters is located near a church, and if it's camouflage then why are these warplanes not covered? (1 hour 42 min) Independence Day. / Screenshot from film At headquarters, the Russian military for some strange reason prefers candles instead of electric lights. Again 1914? Independence Day. / Screenshot from film 2. The Bourne Identity (2002), and The Bourne Supremacy (2004) Everything was fine until Bourne found his Russian passport (17 min).  In Russian, his name is written as Ащьф ЛШТШФУМ (Ascshf LSHTSHFUM), which somehow is translated as Foma Kiniaev (yes, an ‘ordinary’ Russian name). Of course, the Russian letters are absolutely meaningless nonsense. The Bourne Identity. / Screenshot from film The filmmakers tried to fix this fail in the movie sequel, The Bourne Supremacy, but something went wrong again  - the ‘I’ (И) is one too many here, and the surname is Kiniyaev instead of Kiniaev. Moscow again is written as “Moscou.” (1 hour 18 min) The Bourne Supremacy. / Screenshot from film In Moscow, Bourne is looking for a girl, and a woman tells him her address – 16 Otradnaya Street. However, if he'd search for the street as it was written in the subtitles, he'd never find it. (1 hour 24 min). The Bourne Supremacy. / Screenshot from film 3. RED (2010) Everybody knows that in Russia it’s always cold, which is why when Frank Moses comes to the Russian Embassy we see snow all around, and Marvin wears a winter hat and parka. The embassy’s building is decorated by a bear, of course. (44 min 35 sec) RED. / Screenshot from film When Moses enters the building we see many titles, one of which has the meaning - careful analysis («Тщательный анализ»). We don’t know what is “sostrazanne” (and why it's 45 percent), as well as “format direktivy.” Other words are just a bunch of symbols that mean nothing. (45 min) RED. / Screenshot from film 4. Fantastic Four (2005) The creators of the Fantastic Four movie came up with a fantastic name for the ship – the “Toe head” (Головка пальца ноги) (1 hours 37 min). Fantastic Four. / Screenshot from film 5. A Good Day to Die Hard (2013) In the beginning we see the case of John McClane’s son, written in Russian. Again, the Hollywood script writers forgot that in Russia we first write the date and then the month. A Good Day to Die Hard. / Screenshot from film The main heroes decide to cross the Russian-Ukrainian border unnoticed after stealing a Maybach (why do they think it’s the best idea?) that they broke into with a kind of metal bar. Of course, there was no alarm; the car owner probably spent all his money on the vehicle. (59 min) A Good Day to Die Hard. / Screenshot from film In the U.S., some places show the number of a town's inhabitants on road signs. But Russia and Ukraine don't have such a tradition. (Here we see: “Pripyat, population 50,000”) (1 hour 2 min 38 sec) A Good Day to Die Hard. / Screenshot from film 6. Iron Man 2 (2010) Russia is integral to this superhero movie, but it seems quite certain that the script writers didn’t have a Russian-speaking adviser. For example, on the screen instead of “Live” we see "At present” (Теперь). (54 sec., 17 min. 18 sec.) And there's "U.S. Senators a question Tony Stark;" instead of “U.S. Senators question Tony Stark.” Iron Man 2. / Screenshot from film When the squad of bad robots aims at visitors to the exhibition, we are shown a screen that says  "target," in which it’s written in Russian that something "prohibits passage according to the references available in the document." (запрещает проход по ссылкам, имеющимся в документе) (1 hour 39 min) Iron Man 2. / Screenshot from film Then – “Allows passage according to the references available in the document. ” (разрешает проход по ссылкам, имеющимся в документе). Iron Man 2. / Screenshot from film 7. RocknRolla (2009) In Guy Ritchie’s world, Russian oligarchs do business not only through negotiations. At the same time, English subtitles often do not coincide with the speech of ‘Russian’ actors. For example, the phrase “I want you to keep an eye on this snake” was translated as “I want you and the czar to keep an eye on her.” What czar? (49 min) RocknRolla. / Screenshot from film 8. Salt (2010) Of course, when making a film about a gorgeous Russian secret agent the producers have to add all sorts of things with Cyrillic titles. But does she really need to keep on her CIA desk a pennant with the words, “To participants in the fighting in Chechnya.” Really? It's strange there were no matryoshkas and balalaikas at her home. (5 min 26 sec). Salt. / Screenshot from film Orlov’s questioning: Vassily instead of Vassilievich (9 min 11 sec). Salt. / Screenshot from film 9. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011) The new Russia is so cool. Seems this is the poshest prison in Russia, and the walls are illuminated like the Hermitage. (2 min 14 sec) Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. / Screenshot from film Hollywood still saves money not hiring Russian-speaking advisers. The title at the security monitor is just a random set of letters (4 min 28 sec). Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. / Screenshot from film It's 2011, but in central Moscow we see an old payphone that costs two Soviet kopeks. (17 min 45 sec, and 19 min 38 sec). Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. / Screenshot from film This payphone turns into a device for secret communications, and shows Tom Cruise his new Russian documents with the name of “Anatoly Fedorov,” that will help him to penetrate the Kremlin. (18 min 37 sec) Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. / Screenshot from film At the Kremlin, however, he somehow became “Alexander Samokhvalov.” (22 min 49 sec) Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. / Screenshot from film Again, thrilling news from Mother Russia. Does anybody know what’s “Red Schuare“ (Ред Счуаре)? (36 min 25 sec). Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. / Screenshot from film We just wonder if all secret suitcases have the words, “Status of the Russia nuclear warhead,” even without its name? Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. / Screenshot from film The Russian alphabet has 33 letters, but the villain’s keyboard has only 29. (1 hour 49 min 18 sec) Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. / Screenshot from film 10. The Fate of the Furious (2017) Cool guys, chases and the eight part of the famous movie series. Car racers go to Russia's Arctic region, to the unknown area of Vladovin. Of course, it's best to do it with a red supercar. (1 hour 29 min 45 sec) The Fate of the Furious. / Screenshot from film Why did they write “dangerous” on the helicopter? (1 hour 31 min) The Fate of the Furious. / Screenshot from film 11. John Wick (2014) Our list ends with this thriller. Does anyone know why the Russian mafia refers to Wick as “Baba Yaga”? Strange that the killer has a nickname of an old fairytale witch that lives in a forest and eats children.  John Wick. / Screenshot from film Did we miss anything? Write your commentary below! 

25 июня, 05:28

U.S. lawmakers urge Trump to press Modi on trade, investment

Leading U.S. congressmen have called on President Donald Trump to press Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to remove barriers to U.S. trade and investment when they meet for the first time on Monday. The lawmakers, from the Republican and Democratic parties, said in a letter to Trump that high-level engagement with India had failed to eliminate major trade and investment barriers and had not deterred India from imposing new ones. "Many sectors of the Indian economy remain highly and unjustifiably protected, and India continues to be a difficult place for American companies to do business," they wrote, noting that a 2017 World Bank report ranked India 130th out of 190 countries for ease of doing business.

24 июня, 15:00

Kentucky's Hedge Funder Governor Keeps State Money In Secretive Hedge Funds

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Kentucky’s public pension system is a long-running, worst-in-the-nation disaster. Even as state workers chip in their fair share, the system suffers from years of chronic underfunding by the state. Seeking higher returns, the program, formally known as Kentucky Retirement Systems, has turned to “alternative investments” such as private equity and hedge funds. But those funds also carry far more risk than traditional investments in stocks and bonds ― and much higher fees.  The year before the state’s Republican governor, Matt Bevin, was elected, the pension system had 25 percent more alternative investments than its peers, 27 percent higher costs and 15 percent lower long-term returns, according to a report prepared for the pension board. As a part-owner of a hedge fund himself, Bevin said in 2015 that he didn’t have a problem with the pension system’s heavy reliance on alternative investments like hedge funds. But he campaigned on promises to improve the system and shore it up for the future. He hasn’t. Despite the Republican Party being in total control of Kentucky state government for the first time in nearly a century, the actual policy changes Bevin has implemented or overseen have mainly ended up supporting the system’s ruinous status quo. And some legislators are raising concerns that state officials ― potentially including Bevin himself ― could benefit financially from the system. Maintaining Kentucky’s status quo requires that oversight be finely balanced between people who are deeply invested in the current system and people who have very little idea of what’s going on. Since taking office in December 2015, Bevin has picked a former hedge fund director, a current hedge fund owner and a dermatologist to serve on the board that watches over the pension system. In February 2017, he signed bipartisan legislation that shielded the board from disclosing how much it paid some investment managers and prevented it from opening its contract process to competitive bidding. Under Bevin’s watch, the pension fund has continued to rely on alternative investments. It makes no sense, some state lawmakers argue, to overpay for risky financial products that rarely outperform the market. The retirements of as many as 350,000 public employees ― including social and mental health workers, university staff and others ― are at stake. Experts, including legendary investor Warren Buffett, agree. Buffett has long advocated against alternative investments, saying it’s better to focus on simpler options that deliver better returns.  “I’ve talked to huge pension funds, and I’ve taken them through the math, and when I leave, they go out and hire a bunch of consultants and pay them a lot of money,” Buffett said last year. “It’s just unbelievable.” The potential for corruption is also much greater when funds invest in these types of assets over “plain vanilla stocks and bonds,” said Lynn Stout, a professor of corporate and business law at Cornell University. But Kentucky continues to transfer tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to hedge fund managers. And the state’s front-line public servants are still wondering if the pension money will be there when they need it. By the time Bevin took office, Kentucky’s public pension system was among the worst-funded in the nation, according to a 2016 study from S&P Global Ratings. The pensions overseen by Kentucky Retirement Systems had just 37 percent of the money required to pay current and future retirees. The largest of the three funds ― Kentucky Employees Retirement System, which covers virtually all state employees except teachers, legislators, judges and state police ― had only enough money to cover 17 percent of its obligations. Bevin’s first budget, released in January 2016, proposed a larger-than-required monetary commitment to pensions. The legislature eventually passed a budget that put $1.2 billion toward the troubled system. The governor’s effort to remake the system really got rolling in April that year, when he fired Thomas Elliott, the chairman of the Kentucky Retirement Systems board of trustees and a former banker. Elliott had been reappointed to a four-year term in 2015 by the previous governor. His firing was meant to give Kentucky “a fresh start and more transparency,” Bevin’s spokeswoman said at the time. Elliott didn’t go quietly ― he chaired the board’s April meeting despite Bevin’s order removing him. The governor picked a dermatologist to replace Elliott, but that individual never assumed the seat, withdrawing in May after the state attorney general said he lacked the requisite investment experience and that Elliott’s firing had been improper. Bevin showed up at the board’s May meeting with state troopers to physically bar Elliott from acting as chair. Bevin’s appointments included two hedge fund managers. One was Neil Ramsey, the owner of Louisville, Kentucky-based hedge fund RQSI Holdings. Throughout the turmoil, Kentucky Retirement Systems didn’t just continue to invest in hedge funds ― it intensified its commitment. In May 2016, the board dumped $300 million more into four new hedge funds and increased its investment in another hedge fund, created for Kentucky by KKR Prisma, that itself invests in hedge funds. The following month, Bevin, whose spokesperson did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this article, announced that he would reorganize the entire board of trustees. By executive order, he expanded the board from 13 to 17 members and named economist John Farris as its chairman. The new structure allowed Bevin to appoint seven board members right away. In response, Elliott and another trustee sued Bevin. That lawsuit is ongoing, and Elliott remains a non-voting member of the board thanks to a court order. Bevin’s appointments included two hedge fund managers. One was Neil Ramsey, the owner of Louisville, Kentucky-based hedge fund RQSI Holdings. Ramsey, along with his wife, contributed $4,000 to Bevin’s gubernatorial campaign and $15,000 to his inaugural committee, state records show. He also appears to own two other investment companies, according to Securities and Exchange Commission filings: d.Quant Special Opportunities Fund, which late last year acquired a majority stake in another company called ZAIS Group Holdings. Neither of those firms is listed on the most recent version of Ramsey’s financial disclosure form, a copy of which HuffPost obtained through an open records request. Ramsey did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The other new board member was William Cook, a former director and senior portfolio manager at KKR Prisma, the company that created the fund of funds for Kentucky Retirement Systems. Cook, who retired from KKR Prisma in 2015, said he would recuse himself from any investment decisions involving his former company. This past November, as both Democratic and Republican members of the state legislature called on the pension board to divest from hedge funds, the board abruptly changed course and proposed to cut those investments in half. It would divest from 12 hedge funds altogether, and its investment in the KKR Prisma fund would return to the prior lower level. That decision was finalized in December 2016, but it’s not clear how much headway the pension board has made on the promise. Overall, big institutional investors like pension funds hold a declining, albeit still large, share of hedge funds’ assets. Some pension systems, such as those in California and New York City, have said they will divest entirely from hedge funds. New York City is just getting started, while California’s investment is down 80 percent since 2014. Kentucky’s progress is less impressive. As of March 2015, the state’s pension program had 10.6 percent of its $16 billion worth of assets in hedge funds. As of March 2017, that number was 8.4 percent, a large portion of which is still in the KKR Prisma fund. After the pension board’s drama, the Kentucky state legislature took up a measure, known as Senate Bill 2, that had been a priority for reform-minded Republicans and Democrats for more than two years. Its primary aim was to increase transparency around and reduce the costs of the pension investments. Past versions of the bill, sponsored by state Sen. Joe Bowen (R), included two significant provisions that would have required Kentucky Retirement Systems to disclose the fees it paid to all investment managers ― including managers of the hedge funds within the KKR Prisma fund ― and would have opened up the process of selecting the firms that oversee the pension program’s investments to a competitive bidding process. Currently, state pension officials hire whomever they want to oversee pension assets, and pay whatever fees they think are fair.  The provision requiring disclosure of all management fees was particularly important, given that the KKR Prisma fund is one of the system’s largest hedge fund investments. Generally, funds of hedge funds are used by individual investors who cannot put money directly into hedge funds. Even for those people, funds of funds are rarely a good deal, because they come with an extra layer of fees that goes to the fund-of-funds manager, on top of the fees paid to the underlying hedge funds. This structure makes even less sense for an investor, like Kentucky Retirement Systems, that can and does put money directly into hedge funds. Kentucky may have gravitated to the fund of funds because KKR Prisma offered a part-time pension employee as part of the deal. Yet that seems to suggest that the pension program didn’t have the in-house expertise or staffing levels needed to invest in hedge funds, let alone a fund of hedge funds. Measures to require full fee disclosure and competitive bidding were noticeably absent from this year’s version of SB 2, and an amendment to reinsert them was defeated on the House floor. Instead, the latest bill mandated more granular disclosure of fees (but didn’t cover fees paid to underlying funds), strengthened the requirement that pension board members have investment experience (a provision that likely would have precluded Bevin from appointing a dermatologist), and cemented Bevin’s reworking of the board’s structure. These changes were supported by both parties and passed unanimously in February. How the two stronger provisions disappeared from the bill “is a mystery,” said state Rep. Jim Wayne (D), who has for years fought for pension reforms, including the divestment of hedge fund investments. Kentucky Retirement Systems, as it had in the past, opposed full fee transparency and competitive bidding on the grounds that those requirements would make the pension funds less competitive, as investment managers would be less likely to do business with them if their books had to be open. The overall legislation was “a compromise that I worked out with KRS,” Bowen told HuffPost. He suggested that it will still reduce costs and increase transparency because it requires the board to develop best practices for managing assets and picking contractors, and then get those guidelines approved by the state government’s Finance and Administration Cabinet. Secret deals don’t help anybody. We’re taking their assumption that we’re getting a good deal, but it’s a secret. And the performance in the market proves that it has been a bad deal for Kentucky. Rep. James Kay, who has spearheaded Democratic pension reform efforts Some Kentucky lawmakers wondered whether Bevin had been involved in the watering down of SB 2, even as they stressed there were no clear links. Given his history in the investment field and the new makeup of the board, “it would not surprise me if he had a hand in that process,” Wayne said. Bowen said that while he’d discussed parts of the legislation with the governor’s office, he’d heard “nothing contrary” from Bevin about the two provisions that were cut. Regardless, the removal of those provisions, pension experts said, will be a boon to the Wall Street firms and investment managers that are charged with managing Kentucky’s investments. In 2015 alone, the state paid more than $100 million in investment fees related to its pensions. “The last minute gutting of SB 2 of competitive bidding and weakening of fiduciary standards I believe was worth in the $10′s of millions for the hedge fund & private equity industries,” Christopher Tobe, a former member of the pension board, said in an email. Tobe wrote Kentucky Fried Pensions, a 2013 book that explores the system’s “culture of cover-up and corruption.” Kentucky is paying those exorbitant fees even as its hedge fund investments cost it even more money. The KKR Prisma fund had a negative 8 percent return in 2016, helping Kentucky Retirement Systems finish the year with a 0.5 percent loss overall. The stock market, the Lexington Herald-Leader noted, rose an average of 15 percent over the same period. A spokesperson for KKR declined to comment after she was sent detailed questions about the company’s role in Kentucky’s pension system. Before SB 2 passed, state Rep. James Kay, who has spearheaded Democratic pension reform efforts, introduced an amendment that would have restored the provision requiring the disclosure of fees paid to all investment managers. He doesn’t buy the pension board’s argument against it. “If they don’t want to do business with us because they don’t want to be transparent, that should be the first sign of trouble,” Kay told HuffPost. “Secret deals don’t help anybody. We’re taking their assumption that we’re getting a good deal, but it’s a secret. And the performance in the market proves that it has been a bad deal for Kentucky.” Lawmakers have also raised the possibility that Kentucky’s elected and appointed officials ― including Bevin, state legislators and members of the pension board ― could benefit financially from the continued opacity of the hedge fund investments. If the KKR Prisma fund’s undisclosed investments include any of the hedge funds that officials own or operate, that would be problematic, Kay said on Kentucky’s public television network earlier this month. Because there’s no transparency, the Kentucky pension system could be investing in hedge funds owned or operated by general assembly members, people on the pension system’s board or even the governor himself, Kay said. “There could be people that could actually vote to enrich themselves on our current retirement board.” There is no proof that Bevin or any of his associates or appointees are benefiting in such a manner. But the idea that they could isn’t just a hypothetical: Heavy reliance on opaque hedge funds and funds of funds has greased the wheels in the past for pay-to-play scandals in major state pension funds, including California’s and New York’s, said Edward Siedle, a former SEC attorney who now forensically investigates public pension systems. “It’s a way of creating, potentially, a political daisy chain,” Siedle told HuffPost. How would that work? In Seidle’s version, the manager of a fund of hedge funds could suggest that the managers of the underlying funds contribute to an elected official’s campaign, causes or business associates. That supportive effort might help the fund-of-funds manager get hired by a public pension system connected to the elected official. Once hired, the fund-of-funds manager could then direct business back to those other managers. “Everybody’s happy,” Seidle said. “Because of the lack of transparency, it’s hard to tell. But ... the potential for personal profit is enormous.” Questions about Bevin’s pension moves have intensified in recent months, as one of his appointments began to draw scrutiny thanks to a mansion in a posh Louisville suburb. In March, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Bevin appeared to be living in a restored mansion in Anchorage, one of Kentucky’s wealthiest cities. The home had recently been sold by Anchorage LLC to another entity called Anchorage Place LLC. The owners of Anchorage Place LLC aren’t listed on public documents, but Bevin admitted in May that he owns the entity. Anchorage LLC, meanwhile, is owned by Neil Ramsey, the hedge fund manager Bevin had appointed to the pension board eight months prior. And it appeared the mansion had been sold at a discounted price. Last year, the Courier-Journal reported, the Jefferson County property valuation administrator assessed the mansion and the 19-acre property on which it sat at nearly $3 million. The sale to Anchorage Place LLC included the mansion and 10 of those acres ― property that was altogether worth $2.57 million, according to the Courier-Journal. The sale price, however, was just $1.6 million ― a reduction of $970,000.  This is one of the worst cases of personal enrichment by a governor. Kentucky Attorney General Andy Beshear (D) The house wasn’t Ramsey’s only financial connection to Bevin. In May, the Courier-Journal reported that Ramsey had also invested $300,000 in Neuronetrix, a Louisville-based medical device company with ties to Bevin. That investment occurred in February ― at the same time the legislature was considering SB 2 and right as Bevin began living in the Anchorage house. The governor owns at least 5 percent of Neuronetrix and sits on its board of directors, according to the paper. The Neuronetrix investment qualified Ramsey for a significant tax break. Selling the mansion at a potential loss did too. During the two months after the mansion’s sale, Bevin “largely ignored” questions about it, according to the Courier-Journal. He told the Herald-Leader that where he lived was not a matter of public interest. The governor called Courier-Journal reporter Tom Loftus, who led the paper’s mansion coverage, “Peeping Tom” and dismissed reporters who questioned his purchase of the house as “cicadas.” The state’s two largest newspapers, he said, “don’t actually seem to care about Kentucky.” Ramsey has maintained that he sold the house at fair market value. Bevin similarly batted down questions about the price during a late-May news conference in which he finally admitted he had bought the mansion. “It is arguably not even worth what was paid for it,” he said, “let alone what it’s being assessed at.” Bevin has even appealed the assessment. But his non-answers have not put the issue to rest. The governor is facing two separate ethics complaints around his acquisition of the mansion. Attorney General Andy Beshear (D), the son of Bevin’s predecessor and a potential gubernatorial candidate in 2019, has asked the state’s Executive Branch Ethics Commission if his office is the appropriate venue to investigate the sale and whether Bevin and Ramsey violated state ethics laws by personally benefiting from it. “This is one of the worst cases of personal enrichment by a governor,” Beshear said in May. “News reports suggest he is personally enriching himself and his friends, getting a Louisville mansion at half the price from a state contractor, donor and political appointee. ... Because the governor refuses to be direct and honest, someone must investigate.” Bevin continues to dismiss his critics. In that May news conference, he tied the mansion and Ramsey’s involvement back to the pension crisis that he says he is still trying to fix. “People that are making the decisions to actually fix the pension system,” Bevin told reporters, “are the very same people that you’re trying to destroy.” (Disclosure: Travis Waldron interned on the summer of 2009 for the Senate primary campaign of Jack Conway, who ran as the Democratic candidate for governor in 2015 against Bevin.) -- 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.

23 июня, 12:05

6 Reasons Salespeople Win or Lose a Sale

Steven Moore for HBR Why does a salesperson lose a sale? It’s a question I’ve studied for years, as part of the win-loss analysis research I conduct. There’s a tendency to assume that the salesperson lost because their product was inferior in some way. However, in the majority of interviews buyers rank all the feature sets of the competing products as being roughly equal. This suggests that other factors separate the winner from the losers. In order to identify these hidden decision-making factors, more than 230 buyers completed a 76-part survey. The research project goals were to understand how customers perceive the salespeople they meet with, explore the circumstances that determine which vendor is selected, and learn how different company departments and vertical industries make buying decisions. We had six key research findings: #1: Some Customers Want to be Challenged What selling style do prospective buyers prefer? The survey shows 40% of study participants prefer a salesperson who listens, understands, and then matches their solution to solve a specific problem. Another 30% prefer a salesperson who earns their trust by making them feel comfortable, because they will take care of the customer’s long-term needs. Another 30% want a salesperson who challenges their thoughts and perceptions and then prescribes a solution that they may not have known about. From a departmental perspective, under 20% of accounting and IT staffers want to be challenged, while 43% of the engineering department does. Over 50% of marketing and IT prefer a salesperson who will listen and match a solution to solve their specific needs. The sales department equally preferred having a salesperson listen and solve their needs and being challenged; HR was equally split across all three selling styles. There’s an interesting explanation for selling styles preferences, which is based on whether the buyer is comfortable with conflict. Seventy-eight percent of participants who preferred a salesperson who would listen and solve their specific needs agreed with the statement: “I try to avoid conflict as much as I can.” Conversely, 64% of participants who preferred a salesperson who challenges their thoughts disagreed with the statement and are comfortable with conflict. #2: It’s Really a Committee of One Whenever a company makes a purchase decision that involves a team of people, factors including self-interests, politics, and group dynamics will influence the final decision. Tension, drama, and conflict are normal parts of group dynamics, because purchase decisions typically are not made unanimously. One critical research finding is that 90% of study participants confirmed that there is always or usually one member of the evaluation committee who tries to influence and bully the decision their way. Moreover, this person is successful in getting the vendor they want selected 89% of the time. In practicality, it can be said that a salesperson doesn’t have to win over the entire selection committee, only the individual who dominates it. #3: Market Leaders Have an Edge In most industries a single company controls the market. Compared with their competitors, they have a much larger market share, top-of-the-line products, greater marketing budget and reach, and more company cachet. For salespeople who have to compete against these industry giants, life can be very intimidating indeed. However, the study results provide some good news in this regard. Buyers aren’t necessarily fixated on the market leader and are more than willing to select second-tier competitors than one might expect. In fact, only 33% of participants indicated they prefer the most prestigious, best-known brand with the highest functionality and cost. Conversely, 63% said they would select a fairly well-known brand with 85% of the functionality at 80% of the cost. However, only 5% would select a relatively unknown brand with 75% of the functionality at 60% of the cost of the best-known brand. Not surprisingly, the answer to this question differed by industry. The fashion and finance verticals had the highest propensity to select the best-known, top-of-the-line product, while manufacturing and health care had the lowest. #4: Some Buyers Are “Price Immune” Price plays an important role in every sales cycle. Since it is a frequent topic during buyer conversations, salespeople can become fixated on the price of their product and believe they have to be lowest. However, decision makers have different propensities to buy, and the importance of price falls into three categories. For “price conscious” buyers, product price is a top decision-making factor. For “price sensitive” buyers, product price is secondary to other decision-making factors such as functionality and vendor capability. For “price immune” buyers, price becomes an issue only when the solution they want is priced far more than the others being considered. Study participants were asked to respond to different pricing scenarios, and their responses were analyzed to categorize their pricing tendency. From a departmental perspective, engineering would be classified as price immune; marketing and sales as price sensitive; and manufacturing, information technology, human resources, and accounting as price conscious. From an industry perspective, only the government sector would be classified as price immune. Banking, technology, and consulting would be price sensitive, while manufacturing, health care, real estate, and fashion are price conscious. #5: It’s Possible to Cut Through Bureaucracy The most feared enemy of salespeople today isn’t solely their archrivals; it’s buyers’ failure to make any decision. This is because every initiative and its associated expenditure is competing against all the other projects that are requesting funds. Do the departments have different abilities to push through their purchases and defeat their company’s bureaucratic tendency not to buy? The answer is yes. Based on the research results, sales, IT, and engineering have more internal clout to push through their projects as opposed to accounting, human resources, and marketing. Therefore they’re better departments to sell into from the salesperson’s perspective. #6: Charisma Sells in Certain Industries Imagine three salespeople who’ve pitched products that are very similar in functionality and price. Which would you rather do business with: A) A professional salesperson who knows their product inside and out but is not necessarily someone you would consider befriending B) A friendly salesperson who is likable and proficient in explaining their product C) A charismatic salesperson who you truly enjoyed being with but is not the most knowledgeable about their product While top selection in every industry was the friendly salesperson, the media and fashion industries selected “charismatic salesperson” more than most, and the manufacturing and health care industries had the highest percentage of “professional salesperson” responses. Many salespeople behave as if buyers are rational decision makers. In reality, human nature is complicated, and a mix of factors — some rational, some not — determine how buyers evaluate sales reps and who they select. Ultimately, it is the mastery of the intangible, intuitive human element of the sales process that separates the winner from losers.

22 июня, 23:14

A Heroin Addict’s Appeal To President Trump

I didn’t vote for you. You see, I was born with a brain injury. Doctors at Children’s Hospital in Boston told my parents I would never be able to walk normally. Young children are mean. As a young boy, insults, and laughs became a daily ritual. When I walked into a classroom, a restaurant, or down a street, people didn’t look into my eyes. They always looked down as I limped awkwardly along. But I overcame and became a varsity athlete at a prep school outside of Boston. As a teenager, I grew strong, and anybody that made fun of my limp or my awkward gate became irrelevant. Frankly, Mr. President, the day you mocked a disabled reporter should have been the end of your presidential candidacy. That said, I for one am all for giving you a chance to “Make America Great Again.” Mr. President, I implore you to focus more of your efforts on the heroin epidemic that is crushing the American dream in every state in the Union. I understand that the stigma and moral issues of heroin addiction run deep. Today’s heroin epidemic parallels the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s. The old school philosophy back then was, “Men having sex with men. It’s not natural. That’s God’s punishment.” Although the diction has changed, the sentiment remains constant today. “I didn’t force them to stick a needle of heroin into their arm. Why should I be forced to pay for their rehabilitation?” But you see, we are not just junkies, Mr. President. I am three decades clean, have won the prestigious du-Pont-Columbia as a journalist, written a Bestseller, became a WGA screenwriter and worked on The Fighter, a feature film that won two Academy Awards. I have spoken to organizations and recovery centers all across America. And what amazed me the most were the rooms were filled with middle-class kids whose fathers were chief’s of police, firefighters, teachers, lawyers, and doctors. Heroin addiction is insidious: in several states across this country, young women are selling themselves as sex-slaves to maintain their daily heroin habit. Just recently, NPR did a radio program about heroin addicts that are purposely committing crimes, so they’ll be arrested and locked up to get the treatment they need. Treatment is just not available on the streets because there aren’t any beds available in recovery centers. The medical community could never have prepared for the onslaught of heroin in their neighborhoods. Mr. President, this epidemic was given birth by Purdue Pharma and their owners, the Sackler family. In fact, the Sacklers became known as the Godfathers of OxyContin and rang in at number 19 on last year’s Forbes annual list of America’s richest families. Through Purdue Pharma, the Sackler family acquired a fortune with the blood of young Americans. Although, a judge convicted Purdue Pharma’s top executives in Federal Court of knowingly and willfully misleading consumers, unfortunately, your old friend Rudy Giuliani’s law firm got them off with a sweetheart deal. As President of the United States, you have an opportunity to save countless lives. Please consider creating a “sin tax” similar to the cigarette and alcohol tax levied by several states. If big Pharma wants to do business on the backs of the American consumers suffering from chronic pain, force them to pay a “recovery tax.” Please consider creating a work program for heroin addicts that want help. A simple, we’ll pay for your thirty-day recovery hospital and continued care, and you’ll work cleaning up roads or run down areas of your community to pay for it. Finally, why not designate a line on the IRS tax forms for people to donate a dollar or more to help put an end to the suffering brought on by the countless deaths of promising young men and woman. Mr. President, you have a daunting task in front of you. But you can’t “Make America Great Again” by sitting back and watching 4,380 Americans die every month from an accidental overdose of heroin. That’s right, 144 people a day die from an accidental overdose of opioids. I have an 11-year-old son that is on the brink of growing up in a society that will be the most dangerous environment in America’s history. You see, Mr. Trump, not since your predecessor, Lyndon Johnson, has the youth of America been more in jeopardy. Think about it; not since the Vietnam War has a generation been at greater risk to die between the ages of 18 to 25. Please help them. An entire generation is on the verge of being wiped out. Ritchie Farrell is the author of I AM A HEROIN ADDICT. Follow Ritchie Farrell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ritchiefarrell1 Need help with substance abuse or mental health issues? In the U.S., call 800-662-HELP (4357) for the SAMHSA National Helpline. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=5942eea2e4b024b7e0df4a70,592efd3ee4b017b267edff56,5919b373e4b0bd90f8e6a746 -- 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.

22 июня, 16:12

Минрегион подписал с IFC договор о сотрудничестве

Министерство регионального развития, строительства и ЖКХ (Минрегион) подписало договор о сотрудничестве с Международной финансовой корпорацией (IFC), входящей в группу Всемирного банка, сообщила пресс-служба ведомства в четверг.

21 июня, 10:51

Законопроект о защите прав миноритарных инвесторов поступил в ГД

Правительство РФ внесло на рассмотрение в нижнюю палату парламента законопроект «О внесении изменений в Федеральный закон «Об акционерных обществах», направленный на совершенствование корпоративного законодательства.

21 июня, 07:00

О внесении в Госдуму законопроекта, направленного на совершенствование корпоративного законодательства

Распоряжение от 19 июня 2017 года №1278-р. В соответствии с планом мероприятий («дорожной картой») «Совершенствование корпоративного управления». Законопроект направлен на повышение позиции России в рейтинге Doing Business по показателю «Защита прав миноритарных инвесторов». Принятие законопроекта будет способствовать повышению уровня защиты прав миноритарных инвесторов и качества корпоративного управления в российских хозяйственных обществах.

20 июня, 23:06

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer -- #55

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 1:50 P.M. EDT MR. SPICER:  Good afternoon.  Before I get into what the President is going to continue to do to advance the Tech Week that we started, I wanted to shine a spotlight on two of the President’s biggest legislative priorities right now -- tax reform and repeal and replace of Obamacare. By the end of the day, both the Vice President and the Speaker of the House will have both delivered remarks at the National Association of Manufacturers about why it's so critical that we come together and quickly deliver significant tax reform to the American people.  Simplifying and updating our overly complicated tax system is one of the most impactful ways that we can create jobs and strengthen our economy.  And I think that's something that everyone in this town can probably agree upon. There’s also major agreement between the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress on what any significant tax reform package must include.  And frankly, I saw some of the Democrats earlier today, and I think there are some that share those general philosophies as well.  We want to make it easier for companies to sell American goods abroad and turn that success into jobs here at home.   I think we all will recognize that what I think every American also agrees with, which is that we need to simplify our tax code.  Depending on the estimates you look at, taxpayers and businesses spend anywhere between 6 billion to almost 9 billion hours complying with the IRS’s requirements.  And those are, frankly, billions of hours that they’re not building things, growing businesses, buying goods and services from other American businesses, spending time with their families, pursuing a personal hobby.  And we must reduce that unnecessary burden in terms of both the burden and the time. Perhaps most importantly, we also agree that we need to get this done sooner rather than later.  That's why we're working hand-in-hand with House and Senate leadership and hosting regular listening sessions with outside stakeholders -- like the one that's being conducted currently in the Roosevelt Room here at the White House -- with trade associations from the tech industry to iron out details and get their input on what needs to happen. We're also committed to seeing the repeal and replace of Obamacare through Congress.  Obviously the Senate is where the action is right now.  This week is the deadline for insurers to commit to selling plans on the Obamacare exchange during the upcoming enrollment period.  And unfortunately, we're continuing to see signs of its complete failure as data from more and more states comes in. Last Friday, the New Mexico Health Connections, one of only five remaining of the 23 co-ops nationwide that was created by Obamacare, proposed hiking its rates by nearly 80 percent.  And just today in Iowa, where the President will be traveling tomorrow, the only insurer left in the Obamacare exchange proposed a 43 percent rate hike for next year. With almost every day that passes, another insurer either leaves the market or raises its rates by double digits.  The American people can't afford to front the bill for this failed law a single day longer.  It's time to repeal and replace Obamacare, as Republicans have promised for a while. Looking ahead this week, Tech Week, as I mentioned at the front, continues, following on a very productive set of meetings and working groups with some of the country’s biggest CEOs yesterday.  The President will visit Cedar Rapids, Iowa tomorrow, where he'll see firsthand the transformative power of technological innovations in agriculture at Kirkwood Community College.  Kirkwood’s agriculture science program is a national leader and widely recognized as a center for innovation in the ag sector. And on Thursday, we're bringing two emerging technologies to the White House that have the potential to revolutionize our economy -- drones and universal broadband.  The President will see demonstrations of how these technologies will contribute to the 21st century economy and how the government can ensure that their safe adoption leads to the best possible outcomes for the American worker and American businesses. With that, I'll take some questions.   Katie. Q    My first question is, does the administration have anything to say to China about the death of Otto Warmbier? MR. SPICER:  Well, I think the President has spoken very clearly about how he, the First Lady, and our country feels about the loss of this American.  And obviously, when you look at how he was handled, it's something that we will continue to apply economic and political pressure, and try to continue to work with our allies.  We've had, I think, positive movement on China over the past five months of this administration, and we'll continue to work with them and others to put the appropriate pressure on North Korea to change this behavior and this regime. Steve. Q    Sean, following up on the President’s meeting with the Ukraine President.  Would the President like to see Russia get out of Eastern Ukraine?  And does he see Moscow as the aggressor in this conflict? MR. SPICER:  I think we’ve been clear that, yeah, I mean, obviously that’s part of the reason that there are sanctions, is because until they are out of Eastern Ukraine, we’re going to continue to have sanctions on Russia.  And we believe that that is Ukraine’s -- a part of Ukraine and so, therefore, until -- those sanctions will remain.  It was something that obviously came up in discussion with the President today, and we’ll continue to advocate for that. Q    And does the President support the Senate sanctions that have now been moved to the House? MR. SPICER:  I think we’re going to wait and see what happens in the House before we weigh in on that package.  It’s not just the package; I think there’s some other areas of that package that we need to work with the House and Senate on if it comes back -- depending on how it’s handled in the House -- that we have to address.  But, as is usually the case, we won’t have a statement of administrative policy until it advances through the House. Jessica. Q    Thank you, Sean.  How does the U.S. -- can you talk about what the U.S. is willing to do in retaliation for Otto Warmbier’s death with respect to sanctions of the United Nations or whatever?  And secondly, with the U.S.-China security and defense dialogues beginning tomorrow, it’s already been stated that the North Korea issue is going to be at the top of the agenda.  Do you anticipate walking away from tomorrow’s dialogue with any kind of tangible results on North Korea? MR. SPICER:  We have been very forceful in our political and economic pressure that has been applied in North Korea.  I think we’ll continue to apply that.  And as I mentioned earlier, obviously, China can play -- has played and can continue to play a greater role in helping to resolve this situation, and we will continue to hopefully build on the relationship and the dialogue that we’ve had with China.  I think there have been some positive steps that they’ve taken, both at the U.N. and economically, to help strengthen the case against North Korea.  But I’m not going to get ahead of where we may or may not go.  And obviously, we hope that those discussions with China are productive and continue to move us forward. Gabby. Q    Thanks, Sean.  There were some reports out that President Trump told members of that tech meeting yesterday that the Senate healthcare bill needed to have more heart.  Can you shed some light on what it is he’s not pleased with in the legislation that’s being drafted?  And can you also tell us why he would feel that way after holding a press conference in the Rose Garden supporting the House’s version of the healthcare bill? MR. SPICER:  I mean, the President clearly wants a bill that has heart in it.  He believes that healthcare is something that is near and dear to so many families and individuals.  He made it clear from the beginning that that was one of his priorities.  And as the Senate works its way through this bill, as the House did, any ideas are welcome to strengthen it, to make it more affordable, more accessible, and deliver the care that it needs. But this is an area that the President believes passionately about.  He cares.  He understands the role that healthcare plays in so many people’s lives and their families, and he wants to make sure that we do everything we can to provide the best option for him as Obamacare continues to fail. Q    Is there a specific part of this bill, though, that leads him to believe that the Senate is doing something -- MR. SPICER:  I’m not going to get -- again, this is an ongoing discussion with Senate leaders and individual senators that he’s had.  You know that we’ve brought a lot of those individuals to the White House, and there’s been staff-level meetings as well -- Secretary Price and others.   So I’m not going to get into the private discussions that have occurred.  But I will just say that the more that we can do produce a bill as it works its way through the process that achieves the President’s goals, I think that’s something that we can all agree on. John. Q    Thanks, Sean.  Two, the first one is domestic.  There’s a special election occurring today in Georgia.  Is this election, from the White House’s point of view, a referendum on the President in any way? MR. SPICER:  Look, I’ve said before I’m not going to comment on the political nature of an ongoing race.  That being said, I think if you look historically, special elections generally don’t foretell the outcome of races multiple years down the road.  This is a race that the President -- or a district that the President won by one point.  It’s obviously going to be competitive.  But we’ll have to see tonight.  Obviously, that’s up to the people of Georgia’s 6th district to decide. Q    And then on North Korea, I think the President once said that he’d be open to meeting with Kim Jong-un.  Given what has happened with Otto Warmbier over the course of the past 24 hours, is he still open to that? MR. SPICER:  Well, I believe that the context in which he said that was if the conditions -- if the right conditions presented themselves.  Clearly, we’re moving further away, not closer, to those conditions being -- enact.  So I would not suggest that we’re moving any closer.  And obviously, this is an issue that the President commented earlier at the beginning of the meeting with President Poroshenko that troubles him deeply.   And he believes that if we had -- were able to get -- we’re pleased, obviously, to get Otto back to the United States to be with his family.  But if we had been able to secure that earlier, potentially, there could have been medical help that could have been rendered earlier.  Obviously we don’t know the answer to that, but I think the President worked really hard to do what he could to secure the release of him, and it’s a shame what happened to him.  I think he was very clear about that when he spoke to members of the media earlier today.  Vivian. Q    Thanks, Sean.  Two questions, also on Otto.  The President today said that he thinks it’s terrible what happened to Otto.  Does he have any more details -- do you have any more details on specifically what he endured there?  MR. SPICER:  I do not.  And we would not share them at this point.    Q    And second question.  There are reports that your role is changing here at the White House.  I wanted to know if you can address those reports.  Are they true or not, and if so, can you tell us what’s in store? MR. SPICER:  I’m right here.  So you can keep taking your selfies and selfie photos.  (Laughter.)  But, look, it’s no secret we’ve had a couple vacancies, including our communications director is gone for a while.  We’ve been seeking input from individuals as far as ideas that they have.  We’ve been meeting with potential people that may be of service to this administration.  I don’t think that should come as any surprise.  But we’re always looking for ways to do a better job of articulating the President’s message and his agenda, and we’ll continue to have those discussions internally.  When we have an announcement of a personnel nature we’ll let you know.  That’s a good deal. Going to go to Dave Price of WHO in Iowa in light of tomorrow’s visit. Q    Thanks, Sean.  You already mentioned the President is coming.  We understand that our longtime governor and now Ambassador to China, Terry Branstad, will be there with him.  The President has already praised Ambassador Branstad’s longtime relationship with China’s President Xi.  As you know, the President has a certain style -- the way he tweets and talks -- and that doesn’t exactly mirror the way Terry Branstad has had his career.  In light of that, how do you see this dynamic playing out in Ambassador Branstad’s role with China? MR. SPICER:  Thanks, Dave.  Tomorrow, as you noted, the President will be joined by Governor Branstad at Kirkwood to not just discuss some of the agriculture aspects of what’s going to be discussed, but also talk about trade.  I think he was clearly impressed with Governor Branstad -- as Chuck Grassley put it, he’s been an ambassador for Iowa for decades, if not his whole life.  And I think the President feels those skillsets, his understanding of China, and his dedication to help us support U.S. products and agricultural goods and other stuff, services, to China in particular is going to be a huge asset for the United States.   He chose Governor Branstad because he was impressed with what he had done as ambassador -- as governor in Iowa, and the respect that he has for the people of Iowa I think is going to serve this country well.   Kevin.   Q    Thanks, Sean.  I want to circle back on the Georgia 6th.  Is it fair to say the President will be watching with great interest the race that happens tonight?  And what’s his message -- I know he had a couple tweets -- what’s his message to the people of the Peach State as they consider the direction for that particular district?  And if I could follow up. MR. SPICER:  Okay, so, just so we’re clear, I’m not going to comment on political races.  That being said, as I’ve noted before, it’s no surprise that the President is going to support Republicans up and down the ticket, especially to maintain our majorities in the House and the Senate as we move forward.  So obviously, as you noted, he has tweeted about that and believes that there is a clear and stark choice.  But I’ll leave it at that. Q    Let me ask you about the communications shop here.  I know that you are probably wearing more than one hat at the moment and yet there’s been a great deal of unrest certainly in this room and perhaps in other spaces about a lack of press briefings, a lack of communication with you directly outside of, say, the office.  I just wanted to know if you would sort of unpack the idea behind fewer on-camera briefings, just to sort of help make sense of what’s going on.     MR. SPICER:  Sure.  I mean, what I will tell you is -- I’ve said it multiple times prior to actually taking the job in December and January -- explained that we’re going to do what we can to communicate our message.  We have a tremendous respect for the First Amendment -- your ability to do your job and report and seek out ideas -- and we’re going to work with you.  I think the briefing is one aspect of what we do.  We’re here really early in the morning and really late at night, available to all of your questions, whether it’s email or in-person.  This is one avenue to do that.   We’ve, as you noted, opened up Skype questions to bring more people into the briefing room.  But we have done multiple more opportunities for people to interact with the President, according to several folks that have been here for several administrations.  We’ve looked at a lot of data that suggests when you look at the number of availabilities and interviews that the President has given, it’s pretty significant compared to past administrations.   So I think that while you guys will always advocate for greater transparency and more access, I think that we have done a very good job of not just providing opportunities here at a daily briefing but also making ourselves available as a staff almost 24 hours a day when it comes down to it.  And I think you look at the steps that we’ve taken to give access to reporters and I do think it’s pretty significant.   I understand you’ll always have issues, you’ll always want more, and that’s fair.  I think that’s your right.  That’s what a lot of the press is there to advocate for.  You have an association that does that as well.  And I think you’ll continue to fight for it.  We’ll continue to do our job and hopefully -- but I do believe that if you look holistically, you’ll see that we have a staff that’s very accommodating, tries to get to and responsive to your questions. Q    Thank you, Sean.  Two questions.  Yesterday, the Canadian premier was in town to talk NAFTA.  And he met, among others, Secretary Ross and the Governor of Kentucky, Matt Bevin -- MR. SPICER:  Kentucky.  Q    I’ll let you say it. MR. SPICER:  Well, no, I just thought you said Connecticut. Q    No.  (Laughter.)  The Governor said that he needs good-quality aluminum.  His homebuilders need good quality softwood lumber.  Is the President receptive to this type of argument in negotiation with NAFTA?  MR. SPICER:  You mean with respect to Canada? Q    Yes. MR. SPICER:  Look, I think that Wilbur Ross and the Department of Commerce have made it very clear with the softwood lumber case that they want to get a better deal for our country.  I understand the Governor’s point and we’re going to continue to work through the proper channels in dispute resolution settlement to get that to achieve our goals and the concerns that we have are settled correctly through the mechanism that exists.   Speaking of Kentucky -- hold on. Q    Today is World Refugee Day.  Does the President feel that refugees are a threat to American security?   MR. SPICER:  I think the first and foremost thing the President is concerned about -- obviously, you take an area like Syria, for example.  He's been very focused on trying to get countries to agree to work together on creating safe zones, because refugees, for the most -- in a lot of areas would rather be in their country where they're from, safely, have a place to raise their family, and not be resettled.  That's our number-one goal for them in those cases. But number two is, I think the President has also been very clear his number-one goal as Commander-in-Chief is to protect our country, our homeland, and our people, and that he needs to make sure that people coming into this country are doing so through peaceful means.  And so his number-one priority, as the number-one priority of any leader is, is to protect their people, first and foremost. But then, obviously, as we look throughout the globe and find areas and regions that need support, we've tried to work through diplomatic and economic channels to create solutions. Speaking of Kentucky, I'm going to go to Will Clark, who's at WHAS.   Q    Sean, thanks for taking my question.  My question is about the administration's position on coal.  The administration had, during the campaign, said they wanted to bring back coal jobs to eastern Kentucky, and now there's a lot of those coal miners in that part of the state who are saying that they want tech jobs.  They're going back to college to get the skills for those jobs.  Does the administration still support the return of coal to those portions of eastern Kentucky and into West Virginia? And what is the President's relationship with Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin?  I know he was at the White House last week and was also at the nominating convention in Cleveland, among other places. MR. SPICER:  He has been here a few times.  I think they have a fantastic relationship.  Governor Bevin has been a great advocate.  He's done a lot in Kentucky to grow jobs and really fight for innovation down there.  And I know that his ideas and his input have been very well received here at the White House, and we want to continue to work with him. I think with respect to your question, Will, it's not really a binary choice.  I think the President wants to continue to, and has supported several measures, to really restore the coal industry and to bring it back.   And to touch on the theme of this week, we want to do what we can to really focus on technology, helping our government bring back jobs, create new opportunities for our country, for jobs.  We talked about this a couple weeks ago when we talked about workforce development -- or only a week ago, I guess.  But part of it is to make sure that people have the training and the skills that they need, whether that's going to a vocational school or another training opportunity that gives them the skills in an area like high-tech and technology to pursue a new change in life or a new career or just at a high school. But we need to make sure that we have the training and the support, the loan system, et cetera, that will support people who want to go into a lot of these fields. So I don’t think it's a choice of one industry over another.  Obviously, the President has and will continue to do a lot to support coal, especially the clean coal industry, and at the same time make sure that we have opportunities to give the workforce of the next century, or Americans the skillset to compete.  And that's something that Secretary Acosta spoke from this podium on extensively last week. Q    Thank you, Sean.  Has the President seen a draft of the Senate healthcare bill? MR. SPICER:  I don’t know that.  I know that there was some chatter today.  I know the President has been on the phone extensively with the leader and with key senators, so I don’t know if he's seen the legislation or not.  But I know that they've been working extremely hard, and the President has been giving his input and his ideas and feedback to them, and he's very excited about where this thing is headed. Q    Do you know if anyone on his staff has seen the draft of the bill? MR. SPICER:  I don’t.  I know that they are up there working hand-in-glove with them.  So to the extent that it's -- I don’t even know where we are in terms of a final plan.  I know that the staff has been working very closely with the leader's staff, with Senate Finance and others.  So I don’t want to get ahead of announcement on Senator McConnell saying when the final product is done.  So I will refer you back to him. Jen. Q    I have kind of two questions, if that's okay. MR. SPICER:  Of course. Q    So the first one is just -- in the last few minutes, Gary Cohn spoke in a meeting and kind of laid out a September timeline for a bill on tax reform to actually get to the floor of Congress.  Is that realistic?  As far as timelines go, we've heard a lot of different things.  I keep getting pushback.  We still haven’t seen -- we haven’t gotten to a final vote on healthcare, let alone all the other things that have been talked about.  Do you think that that's actually going to be a realistic timeline? MR. SPICER:  I think we're working really hard.  I think you saw the Speaker and the Vice President, as I mentioned at the top, both talk about this.  There's a strong commitment to doing it, and I think it's, frankly, bicameral and bipartisan.  I saw Senator Warner from Virginia earlier today talking about his concerns with the corporate tax rate and the need for it to come down to the 20s.  That's great.  We would welcome his support on a package like this.   So I think that there is going to be very bipartisan, bicameral support for tax reform.  And as we move forward on this, the degree to which we can get some of those individuals to join in and craft a bill, we'll determine the schedule.  But I think that's mostly a congressional timetable that we have to move with. Q    And will there be outreach to Democrats in that timetable? MR. SPICER:  I think they've already met with some Democrats and they'll continue to.  But I don’t -- that has been part of the plan; it's already been part of the plan.  And they'll continue to reach out to members of Congress that share these goals. Q    And the other question, just on -- Ford today announced that they're going to be building this new factory in China.  The President, one, kind of was very -- kind of declared victory when this plant was not going to be built in Mexico.  So, one, is there an administration reaction to their decision to go there?  And then, two, there's been some signs that the administration wanted to get tougher on China.  Are we going to see that from you all? MR. SPICER:  Well, with respect to your first question, Secretary Ross has put out a statement with respect to Ford's decision.  And I think the general consensus is that the President wants to create a tax system that companies want to come back and bring back jobs in manufacturing here in the United States.   And once we can pass that plan you just asked about, that really gets our companies more competitive, doesn’t leave them with the highest tax rate, and also deals with a lot of other aspects about our business tax code that puts them at a disadvantage to their foreign competitors, then I think you're going to see more and more companies not just go to other countries, but come back to the United States, grow in the United States, manufacture more in the United States.  And that's where I think, overall, we continue to see the need to have tax reform to achieve those results. Sarah. Q    Thanks, Sean.  The President, today, said that if Otto Warmbier had been brought home sooner the results would have been a lot different.  Does the President believe that the Obama administration is partly responsible for what happened to Otto Warmbier? MR. SPICER:  The President was pleased that he was able to work with the State Department and get Otto home as soon as he could.  But I think when you realize what happened, the President believes that had it happened sooner or quicker, potentially there might have been additional medical resources that could have been provided.  He was just obviously saddened by this entire situation and just would have hoped that it could have been resolved earlier. Q    Thanks, Sean.  I just want to ask -- the House Freedom Caucus have suggested that the August recess should either be scrapped or just greatly shortened so more business could be done, to ensure the Obamacare repeal bill through, make the first steps on tax reform.  Is that something that the President could support, scrapping or shortening the August recess? MR. SPICER:  I think that's going to be up to the House and the Senate to determine their recesses.  They don't -- generally, we don't get involved in their scheduling.  So I'll let Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell decide what’s appropriate in terms of their -- Q    Is the President satisfied with the pace that Congress is --  MR. SPICER:  If we continue to move forward with healthcare the way that we've been told we're going to and that -- then I think we're great.  We've got our priorities.  We want to get healthcare done.  We want to get tax reform done.  And obviously the President has spoken very extensively about infrastructure.  If we can get those done, I think we feel very good. Q    (Inaudible.) MR. SPICER:  We'll go as quick as Congress wants.  It's a little out of our hands.  But as soon as Congress can do it, we'll do what we can.  You saw when the President -- when the House had its bill up, the President worked feverishly to make sure that he did everything he could to get it over the finish line.  I think we'll do the same for all of those other scenarios as well. Hallie. Q    Thanks, Sean.  I want to follow up on healthcare there.  You were around when Republicans were criticizing Democrats back in the day of Obamacare for being, as you put it fairly recently, jammed down people’s throats.  You said it was rushed, it was secret -- that was the criticism.  So how is what’s happening now with this bill getting crafted frankly behind closed doors any different from what Republicans criticized Democrats for doing? MR. SPICER:  I think we wanted to be part of the process back then.  If you look at what -- Q    Are Democrats part of the process -- MR. SPICER:  You look at what Senator Schumer said both in February to a MoveOn.org call, where he said that no one is going to be -- no Democrat is going to go near this, and what he said in a letter on May 9th -- he said that no Democrats would be part of an effort that would repeal Obamacare.  So they have chosen to take themselves -- to not make themselves part of this process.   There is -- when Senator McConnell brings the bill forward, I'm sure that there will be plenty of time to have debate.  It's the Senate; there’s always plenty of time to debate.   Q    He said -- next week. MR. SPICER:  Okay, but again, I'm not going to get ahead of -- I'll let Senator McConnell determine the Senate schedule and run the Senate that he sees fit.  But let’s not mistake ourselves with how they approached this thing.  Their leader, Senator Schumer, made it very clear on at least two separate occasions that they didn’t want to be part of this process.  They didn’t want to repeal and replace Obamacare.  They were happy with Obamacare.  We believe Obamacare is failing.  We want a better system for the American people, a patient-centric healthcare system that brings down costs and gives more accessibility to people.  That's it.  They chose not to -- made it very clear that they didn’t want to engage in this process.  So to turn around now and to second-guess -- that's something they should take up with their own leader.  Q    On North Korea, does the President support a travel ban to those heading to North Korea?  And given Senator McCain’s comments that he believes Otto Warmbier was murdered, is it this administration’s position that North Korea killed that young man? MR. SPICER:  On the first one, I think the State Department is mulling additional advisories, and I'll leave it to them.  That's how -- our travel restrictions and such is run through the State Department, so I'd refer you to them. And again, I don't want to, before anything further goes on with respect to him, I'm not going to comment on whether or not his situation, how it was handled, until we have further information on that. Trey. Q    Thanks, Sean.  Two questions for you.  Public perspective on the administration -- how transparent have lawmakers been on Capitol Hill when drafting this healthcare bill? MR. SPICER:  How what? Q    How transparent have they been? MR. SPICER:  Well, I think that we've had a very robust discussion with lawmakers, first in the House and now in the Senate, who have ideas and input.  But, ultimately, each of those bills is the product of their own chamber.  I mean, the House -- we obviously had plenty of sessions with members of the House as they moved forward.  We've done a lot in the Senate.  But each of those chambers runs their own chamber respectively by the leadership they have.  It's not our job to go in and dictate how they do it.   We have tried to be as helpful as we can throughout this process by highlighting the need for repealing and replacing a failed system, and we'll continue to do that.  But it's not for me to get up and talk about how their process works through each of their respective chambers. Q    Can I follow up on Steve’s question on Russian sanctions?  Just very plainly, a yes or no answer, does President Trump believe that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 elections? MR. SPICER:  I have not sat down and talked to him about that specific thing.  Obviously we've been dealing with a lot of other issues today.  I'd be glad to touch base. Q    Generally speaking, in his conversation about Russian interference in our elections, there’s 16 intelligence agencies that say that they did.  The former FBI director said that without a doubt, the Russians -- MR. SPICER:  I understand.  I've seen the reports.   Q    Does the President share those views? MR. SPICER:  I have not sat down and asked him about his specific reaction to them, so I'd be glad to touch base and get back to you. Q    Didn’t he say it was fake news, Sean?  Didn’t the President say that Russia was fake news? Q    Sean, regarding the President’s Cuba policy, the Cuban foreign minister just yesterday said that it is “a grotesque spectacle.”  Does the President have any reaction to that? MR. SPICER:  The policy the President laid out for Cuba first and foremost is something that will help the Cuban people.  It will stop making -- encouraging payments to the military and help them economically lift themselves up.  That is the greatest form of human rights that we can push for right now, to make sure that those efforts that we do and that the American citizens who travel or do business in Cuba follow the law. Our goal is to make sure that the policies for this government first and foremost help the Cuban people.  And I think that’s what the President has done, and we will continue to advocate for. Q    Okay.  Second question, if I might, about the tapes between the President and James Comey.  Were those tapes made?  Do they exist?  And will the President be releasing them to the House Intelligence Committee by Friday? MR. SPICER:  The President has said that he will make an announcement on this.  I expect it this week.  And so when he’s ready to make that announcement we’ll let you know.  How’s that? Thank you, guys.  See you tomorrow in Iowa.  Thank you.   END 2:20 P.M. EDT  

20 июня, 23:03

11 times Republicans said Obamacare process was too secretive

Senate Republicans have come under fire from Democrats and even some in their own party for crafting their Obamacare replacement plan in secret, without public hearings to debate the legislation they have promised to voters for years.But not long ago, leaders in the Republican party skewered President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress for crafting the Affordable Care Act "behind closed doors" and in "smoke filled rooms," as Vice President Mike Pence, at the time a lawmaker from Indiana, put it. Senators wound up spending 25 days on floor debate over the law, which passed in 2010, in addition to committee discussions. Senate Republicans have not yet released the text of their replacement bill, although they have said they hope to vote on it next week.Here are 11 times Republicans complained about a lack of transparency in the 2009-2010 process of crafting and passing Obamacare. 1. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, then the minority leader, in a press gaggle, Dec. 18, 2009: “This massive piece of legislation that seeks to restructure one sixth of our economy is being written behind closed doors without input from anyone in an effort to jam it past not just the Senate but the American people before Christmas.”2. Pence to the Washington Times, Oct. 19, 2009: "They've gone from regular order to smoke-filled rooms so there's no real way of knowing when (the final bills) are going to emerge."3. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) at a committee mark-up, June 17, 2009: "The fundamental flaws in this bill are the direct consequence of how the bill was put together. The bill was drafted exclusively by Democratic staff, who excluded Republicans from the process of preparing the actual legislation."4. House Speaker Paul Ryan, then a House member from Wisconsin, to MSNBC, July 29, 2009: “I don’t think we should pass bills that we haven’t read and we don’t know what they cost. You rush this thing through before anyone knows what it is, that’s not good democracy, that’s not doing work for our constituents.”5. Sen. Lindsey Graham in a floor speech, Dec. 19, 2009: “Here’s what they did to get that one vote: They had a deal cooked up that no one knew about but the two people talkin’. There was no input from anybody other than the majority leader and the senator from Nebraska. And after that meeting was over, they come up with a 380 page amendment to a 2000 page bill, they file it yesterday, we hear about it for the first time yesterday… And this is a transparent new way of doing business? You cook up a deal in a backroom that is essentially sleazy in my view to allow one state to be held harmless for Medicare enrollees to get that vote.”6. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) statement, Dec. 19, 2009: "After weeks of back-room dealing and clandestine negotiations behind closed doors of the Capitol, the Reid amendment is a classic grab bag of special deals to buy votes at the expense of American taxpayers."7. Sen. Lamar Alexander, (R-Tenn.) to the New York Times, Dec. 21, 2009: “It’s obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the Senate to come in session at midnight, has scheduled a vote for 1 a.m., is insisting that it be passed before Christmas — because they don’t want the American people to know what’s in it.”8. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), then a House member, on Twitter, Jan. 12, 2010: "After all the backroom deals and secret meetings, only 36% of Americans approve of Pres Obama’s handling of health care."9. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) on Twitter, Jan. 13, 2010: "House and Senate leadership now meeting behind closed doors. Health care reform must not be finalized in dark..."10. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) on Twitter, Jan. 13, 2010: "Join our effort to stop closed door health care negotiations by signing the petition."11. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, then a House member from Georgia, on Twitter, Jan. 14, 2010: "With Democrats discussing health care in secret, they're sacrificing the trust of the American people."

20 июня, 19:22

FULL TEXT: Speaker Ryan's First Major Speech on Tax Reform

WASHINGTON—Today, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) delivered his first major speech on tax reform at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) 2017 Manufacturing Summit. Below are Speaker Ryan's full remarks as prepared for delivery. Watch the speech live now. "Thank you very much, Jay. "It is such an honor to follow my dear friend, our Vice President, Mike Pence. "Together, we are working on a bold agenda for the country. Regulatory reform. Health care reform. Tax reform. Rebuilding our military. And after years of talking about these problems, we are finally doing something about them. "But I do not view this as a simple checklist of government. Or just turning the page on the policies of the recent past. "This is much bigger than that. And it goes back to something I talked about not long after I became Speaker, but something that is as relevant as ever today. "It is about building a confident America. An America where people are confident they can get a job that pays well in an economy that is growing. An America where people are confident that their children will grow up with real security and opportunity. "And we want an America where people are confident we can withstand any challenge, and emerge even stronger. "This, to me, is the great task before us. "Because these are anxious times. We all feel it. "It is not something we often think about in the rush of our daily lives, but we are being tested. Our capacity to come together and to always move forward toward a better, stronger nation is being tested. "That is what defines us as Americans. It is not about our struggles. It is about how we overcome them—how we bounce back. "So this is what drives me every day as a policymaker: How do we build up our country’s antibodies? What I mean by that is, how do we fill up that well of resilience we can call on when things get tough? "I believe I have come to the right place to talk about how we get there. "How many times in recent years have the so-called experts told us that American manufacturing is never coming back? That its best days were in the rear view mirror. "But right now, there are nearly a million more Americans working in manufacturing than there were at the beginning of this decade. Manufacturing is thriving across the country. "Now you know as well as anyone how quickly things can change. And when they do, will we be able to say that we are ready? Will our workers be ready to take on jobs that do not even exist yet? Will our economy be ready to handle disruptions that we cannot fathom yet? That is our test. "And that is why, working with President Trump, we are delivering on an agenda to create jobs and grow our economy. "To begin fixing our regulatory system, we have repealed Obama-era red tape with a legislative tool known as the Congressional Review Act. "Before this Congress, this tool had only been used successfully once. Once in the 20 years it has been on the books. "But since January, 14 Congressional Review Acts have been signed into law. It is estimated that these actions could save families and businesses more than $36 billion. "And we are just getting started. "To revitalize Main Street, earlier this month the House passed the Financial CHOICE Act. "You have seen as much as anyone the hit that community banks have taken from the countless costly rules coming out of Washington. These banks are the very lifeblood of credit for small business across our country. "Our plan will give real relief to community banks, and make it easier for small businesses to get the capital they need to grow and hire. "Another thing we need to do to make our workforce more resilient is close the skills gap. This is so important. We need to connect people with the skills they need to get good-paying, in-demand jobs. "That is why, on Thursday, the House will be taking action on critical legislation to expand career and technical education. This has strong support from both sides of the aisle, and we need to get it to the president’s desk. "And our work continues to repeal and replace Obamacare. Because this law is clearly collapsing. "Americans nationwide face rising double-digit premium increases. "And coverage choices are disappearing. "In 30 percent of the counties throughout America, people have one or no plans to choose from. "This month, Anthem decided to quit the Obamacare exchange in Ohio, leaving 18 counties with zero coverage options next year. "Last month, Blue Cross Blue Shield decided to quit the Missouri exchange, leaving 25 counties with zero coverage options. "And also last month, Medica signaled it will quit the Iowa exchange, which would leave 94 of 99 counties in the state—70,000 people—with zero coverage options. "So this is the story across the country. Higher premiums. Little or no choice. A death spiral. "We are engaged in nothing short of a rescue mission to finally bring relief to Americans struggling under the law, and give everyone access to the care they need. "So in just five months, we have made some real progress getting government out of your way. And your support has been a big reason why. Thank you. "But once in a generation or so, there is an opportunity to do something transformational—something that will have a truly lasting impact long after we are gone. "That moment is here and we are going to meet it. "Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to fix this nation’s tax code once and for all. "You may recall that the last time we did this was three decades ago—the same year I got my driver’s license. Yes, a lot has changed since then. Our economy is more interconnected with the rest of the world than ever before. The Internet has transformed the way we do business and go about our lives. "But as the world changed, our tax code has remained stuck in neutral. It has ballooned to 70,000 pages of rules and regulations that few people today actually understand. There is an old line about this: our tax code is about five times as long as the Bible, but with none of the Good News. "President Trump recently introduced a set of principles for tax reform, and right now we—the House and Senate—are working with the administration to turn them into a transformational tax reform plan. Chairman Kevin Brady and our Ways and Means Committee members are holding open hearings and meeting with stakeholders on this right now. "I want to take a few minutes to walk you through what that kind of reform will look like. "Let’s start with families and individuals. "At some point along the way, our tax system started working for the tax collectors rather than the hardworking taxpayers. "Look at what happens during tax season. I could describe the complexity of the code all day, but what really defines our tax code is that sense of dread that you feel. You know that feeling? "You have to navigate long, complicated forms to file your returns. You need to wade through a seemingly endless amount of deductions and credits, each with its own rules and eligibility requirements. "And then, after you tally up those deductions, you are placed in up to seven different federal tax brackets based on your income level. "And at the end you hope—I mean really hope—that you do not owe a bunch this year. You hope, because you do not really know ahead of time. How could you? This whole system is too confusing, and just too darn expensive. "We have got to stop this madness. Don’t you agree? "So let’s start over. "First, we will eliminate harmful, burdensome taxes including the death tax and Alternative Minimum Tax. "Next, we will clear out special interest carve outs and excessive deductions, and focus on keeping those that make the most sense: home ownership, charitable giving, and retirement savings. "We will consolidate the existing seven brackets into three, double the standard deduction, and simplify things to the point that you can do your taxes on a form the size of a postcard. Wouldn’t that be nice? "And finally—and most importantly—we will use the savings from eliminating these loopholes to lower tax rates. "Let me say that again: We are going to cut taxes. "But if we are going to truly fix our tax code, we have to fix all of it—both for individuals and businesses. Why? Because this will create jobs. "That is what this is all about: jobs, jobs, jobs. Good, high-paying jobs. "As a matter of fact, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation has estimated that our blueprint would create 1.7 million new full-time jobs. "How do we do it? "Well, right now, we have the worst business tax system in the industrialized world. "Most people do not realize this, but here in America, 8 out of 10 businesses file their taxes as individuals. In fact, most of our jobs come from these new and small businesses. And under our crazy system, successful small businesses pay a top marginal tax rate of 44.6 percent. "Look, you all know this. Manufacturing employs more than 12 million Americans and adds more than $2 trillion to our economy every year. And the overwhelming majority of these companies are small businesses. "At the same time, our corporate tax rate—for the rest of American companies—is 35 percent. "To put this into a global perspective, overseas—which where I come from means Lake Superior—companies in Canada pay just 15 percent. Heck, the average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 22.5 percent. Yet our corporations pay 35 percent and our successful small businesses pay 44.6 percent. "How can we compete like that? We can’t. "But it actually gets worse. "You see, the status quo encourages companies to move operations overseas, to make things abroad, and to then sell them back into the U.S. "This makes no sense, and it is costing us jobs. "We are actually very unique in the world in the way we discourage capital from coming back to America and how we incentivize off-shoring jobs. This is not the kind of exceptionalism we should aspire to. "Today, U.S. companies are leaving to become foreign companies, when it should be the other way around. We want foreign companies to become U.S. companies. "We must think differently, so that once again we make things here and export them around the world. There are a number of ways to achieve this—we in the House have our own idea—and that is one of the things that we are discussing with the administration. "But the bottom line here is this: We cannot accept a system that perpetuates the drain of American businesses overseas. "My view is this: We should not just try to play catch up with the rest of the world. "We should not just aim for the middle of the pack. "Let’s not accept following in any other country’s wake. "Let’s be the best once again. "Part of this is moving to what we call a territorial system that reverses this trend of corporate inversions, and enables businesses to bring back cash stranded overseas without being taxed. "Right now, if an American company makes money overseas, it gets taxed over there. But we also tax it again if the company tries to bring that money back to the U.S. Almost no other country does this. And as a result, it is preventing many companies from bringing that money home. They just keep it over there. It is literally stranding trillions of dollars that could come into our economy. We have to fix this. And we will. "And of course, real tax reform means slashing our corporate tax rate as low as possible. "This means eliminating special-interest carve-outs and replacing them with lower tax rates for all businesses. "And this means creating a new, lower tax, specifically for small businesses, so they can compete fairly, on a level playing field. "There is one last piece to this puzzle, and it goes back to the idea that all of this is about looking down the road, and planning for the future. "These reforms—these tax cuts—they need to be permanent. "Every expert agrees that temporary reforms will only have a negligible impact on wages and economic growth. Businesses need to have confidence that we will not pull the rug out from under them. "They need the certainty from permanent tax cuts to hire more workers, invest in their businesses, and plan for the future. "So that is an overview of our plan, which will we begin to turn into legislation to put before the Congress. "It is ambitious, yes, but it has to be. "Now I know that the cynics and naysayers are out in full force. "You will hear that tax reform is coming along. You will hear that it is dead. Then you will hear it is back on track. Then you will hear it is on life support. "Sometimes you will hear all of this in the same week, the same day, or heck, even the same hour. Do not be surprised by any of it. "But I am here to tell you: We are going to get this done in 2017. We need to get this done in 2017. We cannot let this once-in-a-generation moment slip by. "Yes, the defenders of the status quo—and there are many—are counting on us to lose our nerve, to fall back, or put this off altogether. "But we will not wait for a path free of obstacles, because it does not exist. "And we will not cast about for quick fixes and half-measures. "Transformational tax reform can be done, and we are moving forward. Full speed ahead. "I promise you that we will give it all we have. "Today, I am asking you to do the same. "Get in this fight. Help us get this done. "Help us make this difference. "Help us build the confident America that our children deserve. "Thank you all."

Выбор редакции
20 июня, 18:52

Anti-sharia group offers donors a private tour and cocktails at Trump hotel

Sponsorship event represents a new twist in the trend of interest groups doing business with the president’s company.

20 июня, 17:42

Four Things Before Today’s Tax Reform Speech

A little while from now, at about 12:45 pm ET, Speaker Ryan will make his first major speech on tax reform and how critical it is for creating jobs, growing our economy, and building a Confident America. Here are more details on how you can watch the speech. Earlier, Speaker Ryan appeared on FOX News’ America’s Newsroom to preview the speech, talking to Bill Hemmer about four ways pro-growth tax reform is good for the country: A confident America “We have to do tax reform in 2017 if we're going to get a confident America and if we’ll rebuild our country's resilience and get the economy we need so people can get good-paying jobs that are careers and get this growth rate up.” To make it simpler to pay your taxes “Tax reform is really important. Look, hardworking taxpayers in America deserve a break. They don't want a tax code working for the tax collectors. They want a tax code that is simplified and makes it easier for taxpayers to comply with.” To create jobs, increase wages, and grow the economy “We’re pushing businesses overseas. We’re telling U.S. companies, ‘stay overseas and if you make something overseas and make money there keep it there.’ That's crazy. We need to make it so that companies can be successful on a worldwide basis and bring those dollars back home. .. We want to clean up the tax code. We really believe tax reform, getting our rates down so they're competitive globally, is the key to economic growth. What our goal here is: higher take home pay, more jobs, faster economic growth. You can't get that without tax reform. That's why we're really serious about getting on with tax reform.” To make America once again the greatest place in the world to do business “We haven't done this since 1986. The rest of the world has passed us by, and now we have one of the worst tax systems in the industrial world in this 21st-century global economy. Our tax rate on corporations is 35%. Our top tax rate on successful small businesses, it’s as high as 44.6%. The average tax rate of businesses around the world is 22.5%. In Canada, it’s 15%. In Ireland, it’s 12.5%, England ‘s going to 18%. China is at 25 and going down. And we are taxing American businesses 35 to 45%. It's ridiculous, it’s costing us competitiveness, it’s costing us jobs.  . . . This is holding us back and we know we need to clean up the tax code. Streamline the IRS. Make the system simple for families and small businesses. And make us more competitive globally so we can have faster economic growth.” READ MORE: Tax Reform: More Jobs, Higher Wages, and Renewed Confidence  

20 июня, 10:30

UK's Hammond says new UK-EU regulatory process needed after Brexit

LONDON (Reuters) - A new system is needed for allowing British and European Union banks to do business with each other after Brexit to avoid splitting markets, Britain's finance minister Philip Hammond said on Tuesday.

19 июня, 23:52

TAX REFORM: More Jobs, Higher Wages, and Renewed Confidence

One of the top priorities of this Republican Congress is to enact transformational tax reform that would make it easier for Americans to get ahead and make America once again the greatest place in the world to do business. With more jobs, higher wages, and a stronger economy, American workers and families would be the greatest beneficiaries of this reform. That’s why, following the principles outlined earlier this year by President Trump, the House, Senate, and administration are working together to meet this historic opportunity. And tomorrow, in a major address, House Speaker Paul Ryan will talk about what this kind of tax reform could look like and how it would lead to a more confident America. FOR FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS: To make it easier to get ahead and simpler to pay your taxes. LOWER TAXES Our plan provides lower tax rates and a larger standard deduction for American families. It will also eliminate the death tax and the burdensome Alternative Minimum Tax. FAIRNESS To help lower tax rates for families, tax reform will eliminate many of the loopholes used by the wealthy and well-connected.   At the same time, we will protect deductions for home ownership and charitable giving that have become a bedrock part of our society. SIMPLICITY Under our plan, we will reduce the number of tax brackets from seven to three, while vastly reducing the complexity taxpayers face. Our plan will simplify our system so greatly that a family can file its taxes on a single postcard. FOR AMERICAN BUSINESSES: To create jobs, increase wages for workers, and level the playing field. STRONGER ECONOMY America has fallen behind our foreign competitors and our outdated tax code is one of the primary reasons. Our plan is designed to once again make America the best place to invest and do business, which will lead to more jobs and higher wages for American workers. Overall, this kind of tax reform, according to one estimate, could provide 1.7 million more jobs, raise wages by nearly 8 percent, and grow the economy by almost 9 percent. LOWER RATE FOR SMALL BUSINESS Currently, most small businesses pay their taxes through the individual tax code, which can be as high as 44.6 percent and makes it hard to compete with larger businesses.   Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and that’s why we will create a new, lower tax rate for small businesses—more in line with what bigger businesses pay. CORPORATE TAX REFORM TO SAVE JOBS The United States currently has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, which is driving companies and job overseas. Our plan will reduce that rate so that we can compete on a level playing field and create more jobs. To help pay for that lower rate, we will eliminate many of the special interest carve-outs that litter our tax code. MAKING IT IN AMERICA Today, our tax code encourages companies to move operations overseas, make things over there, and sell them back into the United States. At the same time, more American companies are converting to foreign businesses simply to avoid our tax system. We have to reverse this trend. Our plan will level the playing field by removing incentives to ship jobs overseas and discourage foreign and domestic companies from using loopholes to avoid paying their taxes here at home. Our plan will bring also eliminate the tax that punishes American companies from bringing back profits made overseas, allowing trillions of dollars currently stored overseas to come home and be invested in our economy. _______ These reforms, taken together, would provide the United States an enormous economic boost and allow workers and families to feel more confident about their lives. Right now, House and Senate tax writers are working with the Trump administration to turn these ideas into a unified Republican plan that we can all rally behind. And this effort, as Speaker Ryan will make clear tomorrow, is full-speed ahead. 

19 июня, 21:26

Сегодня в Украине отменили печати для бизнеса

Чиновнику, который будет требовать документ с оттиском печати, грозит штраф от 850 до 1700 грн. В Украине сегодня вступил в силу закон №1982-VIII о внесении изменений в некоторые законодательные акты Украины относительно использования печатей юридическими […]

19 июня, 18:50

Hoisted from from Ten Years Ago: Kevin Hassett' Self-Smackdown: Yes, Kevin Hassett Is a Real Nutjob. Why Do You Ask?

Not as bad as Kevin Hassett's declarations that CERN's Large Hadron Collider might "swallow the Earth" and that the U.S. has "no recourse short of military action" to deal with the fact that "as science progresses, the possibility climbs ever higher that the fondest dreams of scientists might entail risks of planetary destruction.... The best science explores things far from our understanding. How can we know that things we do not understand will not kill us?" But very bad even so: **Kevin Hassett** (June 18, 2007): Why Did the Fed Help North Korea Launder Money? : "Last week the New York Federal Reserve made what may go down as the most misguided move in the history of the Federal Reserve system.... >...They laundered money for North Korea. A painful flurry of hearings may soon be on the horizon. Last week a group of influential Republicans, including the ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether anti-laundering and counterfeit laws were broken. They may well have been. Here is the back story: >Last February, North Korea approved a new version of the Clinton administration’s framework for shutting its renegade nuclear...

19 июня, 12:00

Отмена печати для бизнеса: что это значит (обновлено)

Благодаря новому закону Украина поднимется на несколько пунктов в рейтинге Doing Business.

17 июня, 16:52

Trump’s Strange Retreat from Cuba

More smoke than fire, Trump’s new policy could still derail an island's fragile turn toward the future.

17 июня, 04:34

America Shouldn't Back Away from Cuba

Daniel L. Davis, Frances L. Garcia Politics, Americas America should help Cubans foster democracy from within. On Friday afternoon, President Trump laid out his long-awaited policy on Cuba during a speech in Miami. An advance memo stated that his policy would be guided by national-security interests and “solidarity with the Cuban people,” promoting a “stable, prosperous, and free country for the Cuban people.” Unfortunately, the policy tools he announced are far more likely to achieve the opposite effect. If the president truly wants to change the behavior of the communist regime, there is a better way—and a new opportunity will arise early next year to accelerate that improvement. In choosing the best policies, it is necessary to revisit assumptions that undergird current policy, many of which have existed for decades. Shortly after Cuban dictator Fidel Castro seized power in 1959 and expropriated U.S. properties, the American government imposed an embargo on Cuba. At the time, communism was spreading in various places around the world, and many in the United States feared it might spread to more countries, putting at risk other democracies. In that environment, it’s not hard to understand why U.S. officials imposed and then maintained the embargo. That time no longer exists. Communism has been exposed as the bankrupt governing philosophy that it always was. Even our former enemies China and Vietnam have substantially reformed the way they govern and do business with the rest of the world. The United States has fostered their opening by increasing trade ties with both nations, to the benefit of the citizens of each country. North Korea and Cuba are left alone in the world as unrepentant communist governments, and their people suffer because of it. Read full article