Congress has significantly expanded presidential tariff authority by passing the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, allowing the executive to impose up to 100% tariffs on key buyers of Russian energy and sanctions enablers. The article argues that this legislation represents a dangerous abdication of Congress's Article I authority, as it grants the executive vast, discretionary power without specifying criteria for enforcement. Historically, the executive could claim tariffs were its own doing; however, by writing and passing this new authority, Congress now owns the resulting trade policy and its economic consequences. This shift implies that future tariffs will be viewed by the public as a direct legislative action, potentially undermining the administration's credibility and creating political vulnerability.
Taxing index funds: Tax timing, investor control, and household wealth
English Summary
The article argues that current tax law creates structural disparities in after-tax wealth accumulation between mutual funds and ETFs, even when holding identical portfolios. This difference stems from the tax externality in mutual funds, where one investor's redemption can trigger capital gains taxes for others. Conversely, ETFs largely allow investors to control the timing of gains realization. Policymakers face a fundamental choice: whether to tie capital gains taxation to fund-level transactions (earlier revenue collection) or to investor-level sales decisions (greater investor control). This design choice has significant distributional consequences, as the current tax advantages disproportionately benefit higher-income households.
中文摘要
本文論述現行稅法在互權基金（mutual funds）與交易所買賣基金（ETFs）之間，即使持有相同的投資組合，仍會造成稅後財富積累的結構性差異。這種差異源於互權基金的稅收外部性，即一位投資人的贖回行為可能觸發其他投資人的資本利得稅。相反地，ETF在很大程度上允許投資人掌握資本利得實現的時間點。政策制定者面臨一個根本性的選擇：是將資本利得稅與基金層級的交易（較早的稅收收入）掛鉤，還是與投資人層級的出售決策（更高的投資人控制權）掛鉤。這一設計選擇具有重大的分配影響，因為現行稅收優勢不成比例地使高收入家庭受益。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
Cuba is on a trajectory toward an accelerating state and economic collapse, risking a point of no return. The state is deteriorating into "authoritarian anarchy," retaining its capacity for political repression but losing the ability to provide basic public services like health and safety. Economically, while the private sector is growing, this expansion is highly unequal, fueling cronyism and widening class gaps between the elite and the poor. If the current trend continues, the country risks calcifying these defects into a dysfunctional baseline, severely diminishing the chances of a stable, democratic transition.
-
3.
The article argues that China's ongoing purges are not signs of weakness, but rather a sophisticated, historically rooted process of 'rectification' that strengthens the CCP's grip on power. This mechanism requires cadres to submit mandatory self-criticisms and build permanent, detailed personnel files (dossiers). This system of record-keeping is the CCP's primary source of resilience, creating profound, internalized discipline that controls internal dissent. Policymakers must recognize that the regime's durability stems from this deep internal control mechanism, making succession—rather than internal purges—the ultimate strategic vulnerability.
-
4.
The analysis argues that contemporary warfare is marked by a return to great power competition, often fueled by strategic hubris and historical overconfidence. A key failure across modern conflicts is the 'short-war fallacy'—the assumption that overwhelming military force guarantees a quick, decisive victory. This mindset blinds policymakers to the need for sustained resource mobilization and complex political outcomes. Consequently, effective strategy requires linking military objectives with clear, comprehensive political goals, rather than pursuing rapid, decisive regime changes or military victories in isolation.
-
5.
The report argues that the rapid integration of AI creates novel and complex risks—such as deepfakes, misinformation, and intellectual property disputes—that do not fit within existing insurance lines, challenging the technology's overall insurability. Evidence shows that while lawsuits center on IP, the scope of harm is expanding into privacy and product liability, and insurers are responding unevenly with a mix of exclusions and limited coverage. Policymakers must therefore focus on managing systemic, correlated AI risks, including shared model dependencies and universal attacks, to prevent market failure and guide necessary regulatory oversight.