This Day in Legal History: Economic Opportunity Act
This day in legal history, on August 20, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act into law, a cornerstone of his ambitious "War on Poverty." The Act allocated $1 billion to fund social programs aimed at alleviating poverty across the United States. It created initiatives like Job Corps, which provided education and vocational training to young people, and Head Start, a program focused on early childhood education.
The legislation also established community action programs designed to empower local communities to fight poverty by giving them control over how federal funds were spent. The Economic Opportunity Act was a key element of Johnson's broader "Great Society" vision, which sought to eliminate poverty and racial injustice while improving education, healthcare, and housing. Though the Act faced criticism for its effectiveness and implementation, it marked a significant federal commitment to social welfare. It laid the groundwork for subsequent anti-poverty programs and remains a pivotal moment in the history of U.S. social policy.
For context and as stated, the act set aside $1 billion for social programs. The richest American of the 1960s was J. Paul Getty, with a net worth of right around (https://www.madisontrust.com/information-c...) $1.2 billion. Therefore, the program set aside about 83% of the net worth of the wealthiest American of the day. If a similar program was enacted today, Elon Musk is the wealthiest American with a net worth of about $195 billion–so a comparable program would need to set aside approximately $162 billion for social welfare programs. Today, Job Corps has a yearly budget of just $1.8 billion and Head Start just $12.5 billion for a combined total of about $15 billion – we have quite a ways to go.
A group advocating for changes to Ohio's redistricting process has filed a lawsuit against the Ohio Ballot Board, accusing it of misleading voters with biased language regarding a proposed constitutional amendment. The group, Citizens Not Politicians, argues that the board's nearly 900-word description of the measure, which will appear on the November ballot, is designed to prejudice voters against the amendment. The lawsuit asks the Ohio Supreme Court to require the board to use new, neutral language that complies with state law. The board's description suggests that voting "yes" would create a taxpayer-funded commission required to gerrymander districts, which the plaintiffs claim is misleading. The case is expected to be expedited due to the upcoming election.
Ohio Redistricting Activists Sue Over GOP-Passed Ballot Proposal (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/o...)
Walt Disney Co. has agreed to have a Florida wrongful death lawsuit resolved in court, reversing its earlier stance that the case should go to arbitration. The lawsuit was filed by Jeffrey Piccolo, whose wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, died from an allergic reaction after dining at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in Disney Springs, Orlando. The couple allegedly chose the restaurant due to Disney and Raglan's assurances about accommodating food allergies.
Initially, Disney argued that it wasn’t liable, claiming it had no control over the restaurant’s operations. Later, Disney suggested the case should go to arbitration based on Piccolo's Disney+ subscription, the arbitration clause in the terms of service for that streaming service, and his use of the company’s website. However, Disney has now decided to waive arbitration to expedite the case in court, expressing a desire to address the family's loss with sensitivity.
Disney agrees to have Florida wrongful death lawsuit decided in court | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/legal/disney-agree...)
U.S. expatriates are frustrated with the IRS’s proposed rules on foreign-trust reporting, particularly regarding the classification and reporting of foreign retirement plans. Many foreign retirement accounts are considered foreign trusts, requiring Americans abroad to report them to the IRS, which can be complex and unclear.
Despite the IRS's efforts to revise these rules, expatriates and tax professionals feel that the new proposals don't provide enough clarity on who needs to report and which retirement plans are affected, leaving many in financial uncertainty. Over 1,500 comments were submitted to the IRS, with expatriates expressing anxiety and confusion about their obligations. Practitioners highlight that the ambiguity in these rules can lead to severe penalties for non-compliance, making it difficult for taxpayers to understand their responsibilities. The IRS’s public hearing on the matter is expected to focus heavily on the need for clearer guidance, particularly on ...
Информация по комментариям в разработке