Insider Legacy Secret
Author

admin

Browsing
In Latest News

President Trump says there won’t be a ‘second Wave of Attacks’ against Venezuela due to their ‘cooperation’

No Comments

President Donald Trump announced in an early Friday morning Truth Social post that he has ‘cancelled the previously expected second Wave of Attacks’ against Venezuela in light of the ‘cooperation’ between the foreign nation and the U.S.

‘Venezuela is releasing large numbers of political prisoners as a sign of ‘Seeking Peace.’ This is a very important and smart gesture. The U.S.A. and Venezuela are working well together, especially as it pertains to rebuilding, in a much bigger, better, and more modern form, their oil and gas infrastructure. Because of this cooperation, I have cancelled the previously expected second Wave of Attacks, which looks like it will not be needed, however, all ships will stay in place for safety and security purposes,’ Trump said in the post.

He noted that he will meet with ‘BIG OIL’ figures at the White House on Friday.

‘At least 100 Billion Dollars will be invested by BIG OIL, all of whom I will be meeting with today at The White House. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’ he declared in the post.

The president’s comments come after he unilaterally ordered an attack against Venezuela last week in which U.S. forces successfully captured Nicolás Maduro.

Trump noted in a Wednesay Truth Social post, ‘I have just been informed that Venezuela is going to be purchasing ONLY American Made Products, with the money they receive from our new Oil Deal. These purchases will include, among other things, American Agricultural Products, and American Made Medicines, Medical Devices, and Equipment to improve Venezuela’s Electric Grid and Energy Facilities.’

‘In other words, Venezuela is committing to doing business with the United States of America as their principal partner – A wise choice, and a very good thing for the people of Venezuela, and the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’ he added.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Economy

Why California Is Bleeding Tech Jobs — Decline Is a Policy Choice

No Comments

For much of the last half-century, California benefited from a powerful first-mover advantage. Dense networks of talent, capital, and research institutions allowed the state to absorb policy mistakes that would have crippled competitors. High spending and taxes, restrictive housing rules, and regulatory complexity were treated as nuisances rather than binding constraints, because growth could outstrip their costs.

That margin of error has narrowed dramatically.

What California is now experiencing is not a cyclical tech downturn or a post-pandemic anomaly. It is a measurable, policy-driven decline in relative competitiveness. The most important evidence is not that tech employment has fallen in absolute terms, but that California’s share of national tech employment has been shrinking, while other states gain ground.

Markets are responding to incentives exactly as economic theory predicts.

Employment Share, Not Headlines, Tells the Story

According to Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics data, California’s technology employment growth has underperformed national trends for several years, including during periods when tech hiring stabilized or rebounded elsewhere, and recently has been declining. California’s share of US tech jobs is falling from roughly 19 percent pre-2020 to closer to 16 percent in recent years, a nontrivial shift for an industry this large.

This is a classic example of relative decline. California still employs more tech workers than any other state, but it is no longer where the marginal job is being created.

Commercial real estate data corroborate the employment figures. Office vacancy rates across Silicon Valley remain elevated well beyond what remote work alone would explain. Bay Area office markets have not recovered in the way peer regions have. Persistent vacancies signal not just a shift to hybrid work, but geographic reallocation of firms and labor.

Migration as a Labor Market Signal

Labor mobility reinforces the same conclusion. US Census state-to-state migration data show continued net domestic outmigration from California, particularly among working-age adults. While international immigration partially offsets population losses, domestic migration is more relevant for employer location decisions, especially in high-skill sectors.

Economic theory predicts that firms follow labor when relocation costs are low and regulatory frictions are high. California now faces both: high regulatory frictions at home and increasingly credible substitutes elsewhere.

Founding Versus Scaling: A Crucial Distinction

California still dominates early-stage venture capital totals, as shown in venture investment data. This is often cited as evidence that concerns about the state’s competitiveness are overstated. That interpretation conflates firm formation with firm expansion.

Founding activity reflects legacy advantages such as universities, networks, and capital concentration. Scaling decisions reflect marginal costs. Increasingly, firms are choosing to incorporate or raise seed funding in California while expanding headcount in lower-cost, lower-regulation states.

From an economic standpoint, this is predictable. Scaling in California exposes firms to the nation’s highest marginal income tax rates, comparatively punitive capital gains taxation, rigid labor mandates, slow permitting processes, and volatile regulatory expectations. These costs rise nonlinearly as firms grow.

AI Regulation as a Binding Constraint

Artificial intelligence policy may become the clearest illustration of California’s regulatory overreach.

A recent CalMatters analysis documents how California lawmakers have pursued some of the most expansive state-level AI regulations in the country. These proposals extend liability, mandate preemptive risk assessments, and impose compliance obligations before alleged harms are empirically demonstrated or even defined.

From an economic perspective, this approach treats innovation as a presumptive externality rather than a productivity-enhancing input.

AI is widely understood as a general-purpose technology. Research shows that such technologies generate broad, economy-wide productivity gains, not sector-specific benefits. Overregulating AI therefore depresses expected returns not only in software, but across healthcare, logistics, manufacturing, finance, and education.

California’s AI regulatory framework has drawn federal scrutiny, which is instructive. As noted in CalMatters, state-level AI mandates were referenced in Trump’s recent presidential executive order, citing concerns over fragmented and inconsistent state regulation. Regardless of political framing, the economic concern is straightforward: regulatory fragmentation raises fixed costs and discourages upscaling.

Regulation, Market Structure, and Incumbency

California’s regulatory posture also has implications for market structure. Extensive empirical literature shows that high fixed compliance costs reduce entry and increase concentration. The OECD’s work on regulation and competition consistently finds that heavier regulatory burdens favor large incumbents at the expense of startups and challengers.

This dynamic undermines the very competition that drives innovation. Europe’s experience with digital (over)regulation offers a cautionary parallel, acknowledged even in European Commission competitiveness reports. California risks reproducing that outcome domestically, exporting innovation to other states rather than other continents.

Costs Complete the Incentive Structure

AI regulation is best understood as the marginal constraint layered atop an already expensive environment. California has the highest top marginal income tax rate in the United States, and taxes capital gains as income. Housing scarcity, documented extensively by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center, raises labor costs without increasing real purchasing power. Energy prices remain among the nation’s highest, as shown by EIA electricity price data.

In combination, these policies alter the expected return on investment at the margin. States like Texas and Florida offer credible alternatives: no personal income tax, faster permitting, lower housing costs, and a lighter regulatory touch. 

Firms do not need ideological motivation to relocate. The incentive structure does the work.

Opportunity Costs and Distributional Effects

The economic cost of tech job relocation extends beyond headline employment figures. When tech employment relocates, these spillovers disappear as well. The distributional consequences are regressive. High-skill workers are mobile. Lower-income workers tied to local economies are much less so. Policies that suppress growth (even under the banner of equity) often hurt the poor most.

A Predictable Outcome

Unless California changes course, the trajectory is clear. AI firms will incorporate elsewhere. Venture capital will follow labor. Scaling will increasingly occur in states that treat innovation as an asset rather than a liability.

California will remain an important source of ideas. It will be a diminishing source of jobs. Markets are not ideological. They respond to incentives. On that front, the verdict is already in.

by
Read More
In Economy

Are Free Traders Materialistic — or Are Protectionists?

No Comments

Recently on Facebook, I shared my Café Hayek post titled “Lower-Priced Goods are a Blessing, Not a Curse.” I prefaced this share with this remark: “Protectionism is the theory that 10+2=6, and 10-2=16. And protectionists proudly and tirelessly defend this theory, happy to dismiss as ‘elitists,’ ‘experts,’ or ‘globalists’ those of us who point out that 10+2=12, and that 10-2=8.”

Of course, my description of protectionism isn’t literally true. And yet it does truly capture protectionism’s essence, which is the bizarre belief that a greater abundance of goods and services made available from sources outside of a nation’s boundaries reduces the supplies of goods and services available to the people of that nation, while policies that diminish the abundance of goods and services made available from sources outside of a nation’s boundaries increase the supplies of goods and services available to the people of that nation.

Putting aside the national-security exception to the case for free trade, such an arithmetical impossibility is indeed what 90 percent of protectionism is revealed to be, when stripped of the vague and misleading language typically deployed to mask its essence. Tariffs and other protectionist interventions are sold as means of creating more and higher-paying jobs (which would, in turn, reverse the allegedly rising “cost of thriving”), of paving paths for the development of “the industries of the future,” of raising impressive amounts of tax revenue from foreigners, of making the economy more ‘competitive,’ and generally of strengthening the domestic economy, improving the living standards of ordinary citizens.

Because voters overwhelmingly like policies that promise them greater access to goods and services, protectionists understandably trumpet the alleged ability of protectionism to deliver on this economic front.

But what about the remaining 10 percent of the attempted justifications of protectionism (again, putting aside considerations of national security)? These justifications pretend to be non-materialistic and, therefore, presumably are ‘higher’ and more weighty than are ‘merely economic’ concerns. Such is the stance, for example, of Mr. Kang Chen, who offered this comment in response to my Facebook post: “No. Protectionism is the theory that there are things that matter besides the prices of goods and services.”

An easy response to a comment such as Mr. Chen’s – a response that’s accurate and appropriate despite its easiness – is to point out that the great majority of the pleas for protectionism promise improved material well-being. More jobs. Higher wages. Rising standards of living. A larger share of our tax revenues paid by foreigners. Protectionists such as Mr. Chen would be taken more seriously if the likes of Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren campaigned for higher tariffs by explicitly announcing that “tariffs will significantly raise, now and into the future, the prices of the goods and services that you and all American households regularly purchase. Most of you, therefore, will see your real wages fall and your material standard of living worsen. But don’t worry! Your lower standard of living will be more than offset by non-material benefits.”

Protectionist politicians never say such a thing. On rare occasions, protectionists triumphantly declare that higher tariffs might reduce people’s access to cartoonishly frivolous luxuries such as “plastic baubles and trinkets,” or, as President Trump said last year, “maybe the children will have two dolls instead of thirty.” (Such declarations are meant to convince voters that the economic costs of protectionism are trivial compared to its economic benefits.) But never do protectionist politicians campaign on a platform of arranging for people to be economically poorer as a price to be paid for non-economic benefits.

No more need be said to dismiss Mr. Chen’s suggestion that protectionism, in practice, is about the sacrifice of economic well-being for higher non-economic ends. But more can – and should – be said.

What people such as Mr. Chen and others believe themselves to be doing when they insist that protectionism is about more than “the prices of goods and services” is distinguishing themselves from free traders, who are assumed to be concerned only with narrow material ends. Mr. Chen and Co. fancy themselves as standing in gallant opposition to the horde of mindlessly materialistic free-traders in order to promote ends such as job security, the family, and the character of towns and regions.

But Mr. Chen and Co. deeply misunderstand the case for free trade. It is not a case for the elevation of shallow materialism over profoundly important non-economic ends.

First, very many (most?) free traders — including myself — support free trade ultimately because it’s consistent with individual liberty, while protectionism is an offense against individual liberty. Even if free trade somehow resulted in a reduced material standard of living, I and many other free traders would still champion it because of its non-economic virtue of being consistent with freedom. It’s fair for Mr. Chen and other protectionists not to esteem individual liberty as highly as do we free traders. It’s unfair, however, and mistaken for protectionists to accuse us free traders of valuing nothing higher than material enrichment.

Second, all motives for economic action ultimately are non-monetary (that is, they’re not about accumulating money for the sake of accumulating money). Some of these motives are material in a narrow sense and, hence, might be called “materialistic”: everyone must eat and be housed and clothed. And some of these materialistic motives are indeed crass and shallow and even contemptible: Joe uses some of his monetary earnings to get drunk on Friday nights while Janet regularly feeds some of her monetary earnings into slot machines. But other of these motives are not materialistic in any narrow sense: Jane spends much of her monetary earnings on piano lessons for her grandchildren while Jerry donates a portion of his monetary earnings to a community children’s theater and uses another portion to improve his and his wife’s learning by subscribing to The Rest Is History podcast. Because free trade increases the opportunities to do all of these things, it’s erroneous to suggest that the case for free trade is a case only for narrow material or sensual gratification.

Third, nearly all of the alleged non-materialistic benefits of protectionism are, in fact, materialistic benefits.

Consider, for example, job security. Job security is valued largely because a secure job is a secure stream of income. If job security really were a non-economic goal that trumps ‘mere’ material well-being, workers who have this goal could greatly increase the security of their jobs by offering to take a significant cut in their monetary wages. Yet, tellingly, such wage-cut offers seldom occur. The case for using protectionism to increase the job security of workers in protected industries is the case for having fellow citizens other than the protected workers pay the economic cost of making the protected jobs more secure.

It’s admirable to have non-economic goals. But it’s detestable to force other people to subsidize the achievement of these goals, and hypocritical to accuse those of us who object to such subsidization of being excessively materialistic. If any group in this situation is excessively materialistic, it’s the protected workers and the protectionists who apologize for them. These protectionists never pause to ponder what non-economic goals a policy of protectionism prevents the bulk of their fellow citizens from pursuing. As a result of having to pay prices driven higher by tariffs, how much leisure does a working mom lose? How much does a family’s education budget shrink? How much health care must another family forego? By how many years does dad postpone retirement?

If protectionists are in search of people who are mindlessly and narrowly materialistic – of people who are blind to the non-economic goals that most individuals have – protectionists should look in the mirror.

by
Read More
In Investing

Prismo Metals to Increase Hot Breccia Interest to 95%, Secures Option for Full Control

No Comments

(TheNewswire)

Prismo Metals Inc.

Vancouver, British Columbia TheNewswire – January 9th, 2025 Prismo Metals Inc. (‘Prismo’ or the ‘Company’) (CSE: PRIZ,OTC:PMOMF) (OTCQB: PMOMF) is pleased to announce that it has entered into an agreement with Infinitum Copper Corp. (TSXV: INFI) (‘Infinitum’) whereby Prismo will increase its interest in the Hot Breccia copper project, located in the heart of Arizona’s prolific copper belt, from 75% to 95%. In addition, Prismo has obtained an irrevocable option to acquire Infinitum’s remaining 5% interest, providing a clear path to 100% interest in the project.

Alain Lambert, CEO of Prismo commented: ‘The absence of a clear mechanism to secure full ownership at Hot Breccia had previously limited our ability to fund drilling and pursue potential third-party partnerships. The transaction announced today totally removes that constraint and materially improves the strategic flexibility of the project.’

He added: ‘Prismo remains firmly committed to advancing Hot Breccia. The recent extension of certain milestone obligations under the option agreement with Walnut Mines LLC (the ‘Option Agreement‘), the owner of the Hot Breccia claims, together with the deal announced today, provides the Company with additional flexibility as we evaluate a range of strategic alternatives. Each of these pathways is intended to position Prismo to commence drilling on what we consider to be one of the most compelling copper exploration opportunities in Arizona and the broader United States.‘

Dr. Linus Keating, manager of Walnut Mines LLC, enthusiastically commented: ‘Walnut Mines is solidly in favor of any action that moves Hot Breccia closer to a serious drill program. We are hopeful that this transaction will accomplish that goal in 2026. In our opinion, this property remains one of the best copper exploration opportunities in North America.’

Under the terms of the transaction, Prismo will pay Infinitum CA $185,000 to acquire a 20% additional interest in the Hot Breccia project and assume all of Infinitum’s remaining obligations under the Option Agreement to issue shares to Walnut, which is currently evaluated at approximately CA $54,000 through the issuance of Prismo common shares at a deemed issue price of $0.11 per share, subject to adjustments at closing. Prismo has also agreed to pay 5% of any consideration received in connection with a transaction in which Prismo assigns its interest in Hot Breccia to a third-party. The cash payment will be funded through a third party as an advance to the Company and will not utilize its working capital which is earmarked for the advancement of the Silver King project. Closing of the transaction is expected to take place on or around January 16th.

Prismo‘s Hot Breccia project lies at the heart of the Arizona Copper Belt, which hosts several globally significant porphyry copper deposits.  Examples of these significant deposits are Freeport McMoRan’s Miami-Inspiration mining complex, BHP’s San Manuel mine, Rio Tinto and BHP’s Resolution deposit and others (see Figure 1).  

Figure 1. Location of the Hot Breccia Project in the Arizona Copper Belt.

Historical drilling carried out in the mid to late 1970‘s by a Rio Tinto subsidiary intersected high-grade copper mineralization at depths ranging from 640 to 830 meters below surface. Several holes targeted an area with a coincident magnetic high, believed to be caused by magnetite skarn that was cut in the drill holes and that occurs in xenoliths in cross cutting dikes exposed at the surface. Prismo believes those intercepts may represent the periphery of the upper portion of a large mineralized system.  

Support for the Company‘s mineralization model at the project comes from several sources, including the results of historical drilling, geophysical surveys, distribution of dikes with xenoliths of Cu-bearing skarn, the 2023 ZTEM survey as well as the results of an AI study. The anomalous target area identified in Prismo‘s modelling measures 1,100 meters by 1,150 meters.  

Dr. Craig Gibson, Chief Exploration Officer of Prismo stated: ‘The copper exploration target at Hot Breccia has geophysical, geochemical and geological features characteristic of many porphyry copper deposits. The project area has a regional setting similar to BHP-Rio Tinto’s Resolution copper deposit located 40 kilometers to the northwest of Hot Breccia and which is considered to be one of the greatest copper discoveries in the history of North American mining.‘  He added: ‘The drill program is intended to drill through the entire prospective Paleozoic carbonate stratigraphy into the postulated porphyry body/breccia zone. The exploration team will take advantage of geological information provided by each hole during drilling to refine targeting of subsequent holes.‘

Historical drill holes cut high grade skarn mineralization including 23 meters with 0.54% Cu at 640 meters depth (hole OC-1), 18 m with 1.4% Cu and 4.65% Zn at 830 meters depth (hole OCC-7), and 7.6 m with 1.73% Cu and 0.11% Zn at 703 meters and 4.6 meters with 1.4% Cu and 0.88% Zn at 716 meters (OCC-8).  Mineralization occurs within a several hundred-meter-thick altered zone hosted in favorable Paleozoic carbonate rocks that underly a sequence of Cretaceous andesitic volcanic rocks.  These carbonates are the same rocks that host the high-grade copper mineralization at Freeport‘s nearby Christmas mine.  The historical drilling intersected a blind mineralized intrusion associated with the skarn mineralization, providing an immediate drill target that is believed to be the source of the mineralization at Hot Breccia (Figure 2). Several magnetic highs in the region surrounding the proposed intrusion may also indicated buried skarn mineralization and provide additional exploration targets.


Click Image To View Full Size

 

Figure 2. Schematic cross section at Hot Breccia showing updated interpretation after Barrett (1974).

Notes:

  1. (1)Barrett, Larry Frank (1972): Igneous Intrusions and Associated Mineralization in the Saddle Mountain Mining District Pinal County, Arizona. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Utah. 

  2. (2)Barrett, Larry Frank (1974): Diamond drill hole OC-1, O’Carroll Canyon, Pinal County, Arizona, unpublished internal report, Bear Creek Mining. 

About Hot Breccia

The Hot Breccia property consists of 1,420 hectares in 227 contiguous mining claims located in the world class Arizona Copper Belt between several very well understood world-class copper mines including Morenci, Ray and Resolution (Figure 1). Hot Breccia shows many features in common with these neighboring systems, most prominently a swarm of porphyry dikes and series of breccia pipes containing numerous fragments of well copper-mineralized rocks mixed with fragments of volcanic and sedimentary derived from considerable depth. Prismo performed a ZTEM survey last year that identified a very large conductive anomaly directly beneath the breccia outcrops.  

Sampling at the project has shown the presence of copper mineralization associated with dacite dikes that transported fragments of strongly mineralized carbonate rocks to the surface from depths believed to be 400-1,000 meters. Drilling deep holes is necessary to tap into the source of these mineralized fragments found at surface.

Assay results from historical drill holes are unverified as the core has been destroyed, but information has been gathered from memos, photos and drill logs that contain some, but not all, of the assay results and descriptions.  Technical information from adjacent or nearby properties does not mean nor does it imply that Prismo will obtain similar results from its own properties.

Data on previous drilling and geophysics is historical in nature and has not been verified, is not compliant with NI 43-101 standards and should not be relied upon; the Company is using the information only as a guide to aid in exploration planning.

Qualified Person

Dr. Craig Gibson, PhD., CPG., a Qualified Person as defined by NI 43-01 and Chief Exploration Officer and a director of the Company, has reviewed and approved the technical disclosure in this news release.

About Prismo Metals Inc.

Prismo (CSE: PRIZ,OTC:PMOMF) is a mining exploration company focused on advancing its Hot Breccia copper project in Arizona and its Palos Verdes silver project in Mexico.

Please follow @PrismoMetals on , , , Instagram, and

Prismo Metals Inc.

1100 – 1111 Melville St., Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 3V6  Phone: (416) 361-0737

Contact:

Alain Lambert, Chief Executive Officer alain.lambert@prismometals.com

Gordon Aldcorn, President gordon.aldcorn@prismometals.com

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Information

This release includes certain statements and information that may constitute forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. Forward-looking statements relate to future events or future performance and reflect the expectations or beliefs of management of the Company regarding future events. Generally, forward-looking statements and information can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as ‘intends‘ or ‘anticipates‘, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results ‘may’, ‘could‘, ‘should‘, ‘would‘ or ‘occur‘. This information and these statements, referred to herein as ‘forward‐looking statements’, are not historical facts, are made as of the date of this news release and include without limitation, statements regarding discussions of future plans, estimates and forecasts and statements as to management’s expectations and intentions with respect to, among other things: the timing, costs and anticipated results of drilling at Hot Breccia; the ability of Prismo to fund drilling and pursue potential third-party partnerships; the Company’s strategic flexibility with respect to the Hot Breccia project going forward; the number of shares issuable by Prismo to Walnut pursuant to the transaction described in this news release; and the Company’s expectations regarding mineralization and other qualities of the Hot Breccia project.

These forward‐looking statements involve numerous risks and uncertainties, and actual results might differ materially from results suggested in any forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things: delays in obtaining or failure to obtain appropriate funding to finance the exploration program at Hot Breccia; the risk that the Company will not enter into a third-party partnership with respect to the Hot Breccia project; the risk that mineralization will not be as anticipated at the project; the risk that the Company will not be able to take advantage of geological information to refine drill targeting; metal prices; market uncertainty; and other risks and uncertainties application to exploration activities and the Company’s business as set forth in the Company’s disclosure documents available for viewing under the Company’s profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

In making the forward-looking statements in this news release, the Company has applied several material assumptions, including without limitation, that: the ability to raise capital to fund the drilling campaign at Hot Breccia and the timing of such drilling campaign; the ability of the Company to enter into a third-party partnership on the project; that the project will have the anticipated mineralization and other qualities; and the  Company will be able to take advantage of geological information to refine drill targeting.

Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements and forward-looking information. Readers are cautioned that reliance on such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statement, forward-looking information or financial out-look that are incorporated by reference herein, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. We seek safe harbor.

Copyright (c) 2026 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.

News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Latest News

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

No Comments

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ ‘Hannity,’ Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

‘Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,’ Trump said.

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated ‘doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country’ to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had ‘nothing to do with my decision’ about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Investing

Yvonne Blaszczyk: Gold Still Far from “Ultimate High,” US$5,000 is Next

No Comments

Yvonne Blaszczyk, president and CEO of BMG Group, sees the gold price hitting US$5,000 per ounce in Q1 on the back of a complex geopolitical landscape.

‘In terms of the geopolitical configuration of the world, we are witnessing history right now,’ she said.

Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Top 5 US Lithium Stocks (Updated January 2026)

No Comments

The global lithium market enters 2026 after a punishing 2025 marked by oversupply, weaker-than-expected EV demand and sustained price pressure, although things began turning around for lithium stocks in Q4.

Lithium carbonate prices in North Asia fell to four-year lows early in the year, triggering production cuts and project delays, before rebounding sharply in the second half. By late December, prices had jumped 56 percent from their January levels, signaling the start of a potential market rebalancing.

Analysts point to tightening inventories and high-cost supply under strain as early signs of a recovery, while long-term demand from electrification, energy storage and the energy transition remains intact.

Battery energy storage systems are emerging as a major growth driver, expected to account for roughly a quarter of global battery demand in 2025. In the US, storage could make up 35 to 40 percent of battery demand in the coming years, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence’s Iola Hughes.

“LFP is the story right now,” Hughes said, highlighting falling costs and technological innovation as key enablers for large-scale deployment. Global storage remains concentrated in China and the US, but new markets like Saudi Arabia are scaling rapidly.

As storage expands in scale, geography and strategic importance, it is set to become a central pillar of lithium demand heading into 2026.

1. Lithium Argentina (NYSE:LAR)

Year-to-date gain: 106.39 percent
Market cap: US$891.03 million
Share price: US$5.49

Lithium Argentina produces lithium carbonate from its Caucharí-Olaroz brine project in Argentina, developed with Ganfeng Lithium (OTC Pink:GNENF,HKEX:1772). The company was spun out from Lithium Americas in October 2023 and changed its name from Lithium Americas (Argentina) in January 2025.

In mid-April, Lithium Argentina executed a letter of intent with Ganfeng Lithium to jointly advance development across the Pozuelos-Pastos Grandes basins.

In August, Lithium Argentina agreed to form a new joint venture with Ganfeng Lithium that will combine the companies’ projects in the Pozuelos and Pastos Grandes basins of Salta, Argentina.

The joint venture will bring together Ganfeng’s wholly owned Pozuelos-Pastos Grandes (PPG) project and Lithium America’s Pastos Grandes and Sal de la Puna projects, in which Ganfeng currently holds a 15 percent and 35 percent stake respectively.

Once completed, Ganfeng will hold a 67 percent stake in the consolidated PPG project, and Lithium Argentina will hold a 33 percent interest.

In Q4, Lithium Argentina released a positive scoping study for the PPG project, confirming its scale and strong economics. The consolidated project hosts a measured and indicated resource of 15.1 million metric tons of lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) and is designed for staged production of up to 150,000 metric tons per year over a 30 year mine life.

In the same announcement, the company confirmed receipt of an environmental approval for Stage 1 from the Secretariat of Mining and Energy of the Province of Salta.

Lithium Argentina released its Q3 results in November, noting approximately 8,300 metric tons of lithium carbonate production at its Caucharí-Olaroz operation during the quarter, with 24,000 metric tons produced between January and September.

Company shares rose to a year-to-date high of US$5.58 on December 31, in line with rising lithium carbonate prices.

2. Sociedad Química y Minera (NYSE:SQM)

Year-to-date gain: 87.39 percent
Market cap: US$19.66 billion
Share price: US$68.98

SQM is a major global lithium producer, with operations centered in Chile’s Salar de Atacama. The company extracts lithium from brine and produces lithium carbonate and hydroxide for use in batteries.

SQM is expanding production and holds interests in projects in Australia and China, including a 50/50 joint venture for the Mt Holland lithium operation in Western Australia. In July, the company produced its first battery-grade lithium hydroxide production at its Kwinana refinery in the state.

In late April, Chile’s competition watchdog approved the partnership agreement between SQM and state-owned copper giant Codelco aimed at boosting output at the Atacama salt flat. The deal, first announced in 2024, reached another milestone when it secured approval for an additional lithium quota from Chile’s nuclear energy regulator CChEN.

SQM ended the year finalizing the agreement. The partnership was formalized through SQM’s subsidiary SQM Salar absorbing Codelco’s Minera Tarar and being renamed Nova Andino Litio.

SQM reported a net income of US$404.4 million for the first nine months of 2025, rebounding from a US$524.5 million loss in the same period of 2024. Revenue totaled US$3.25 billion, down 5.9 percent year-over-year, while gross profit reached US$904.1 million.

The company’s third-quarter performance highlighted the turnaround, as SQM achieved record lithium sales volumes. It reported net income of US$178.4 million, up 36 percent from Q3 2024, and revenue of US$1.17 billion, up 8.9 percent. Gross profit for the quarter climbed 23 percent to US$345.8 million.

SQM attributed the rebound to higher realized lithium prices and improved operational efficiency, signaling a strong recovery trajectory for the remainder of 2025.

Shares of SQM reached a year-to-date high of US$71.63 on December 26.

3. Albemarle (NYSE:ALB)

Year-to-date gain: 64.29 percent
Market cap: US$16.71 billion
Share price: US$142.01

North Carolina-based Albemarle is dividing into two primary business units, one of which — the Albemarle Energy Storage unit — is focused wholly on the lithium-ion battery and energy transition markets. It includes the firm’s lithium carbonate, hydroxide and metal production.

Albemarle has a broad portfolio of lithium mines and facilities, with extraction in Chile, Australia and the US. Looking first at Chile, Albemarle produces lithium carbonate at its La Negra lithium conversion plants, which process brine from the Salar de Atacama, the country’s largest salt flat. Albemarle is aiming to implement direct lithium extraction technology at the salt flat to reduce water usage.

Albemarle’s Australian assets Wodgina hard-rock lithium mine in Western Australia, which is owned and operated by the 50/50 MARBL joint venture with Mineral Resources (ASX:MIN,OTC Pink:MALRF). Albemarle wholly owns the on-site Kemerton lithium hydroxide facility. The company’s other Australian joint venture is the Greenbushes hard-rock mine, in which it holds a 49 percent interest.

In late October, Albemarle signed an agreement to sell its 51 percent stake in its refining catalyst business, Ketjen, leaving it with 49 percent ownership, part of a broader portfolio reshaping that also includes the sale of Ketjen’s 50 percent stake in the Eurecat joint venture to partner Axens.

The combined deals are expected to generate approximately US$660 million in pre-tax cash proceeds and strengthen Albemarle’s financial flexibility. Both transactions are anticipated to close in the first half of 2026, subject to regulatory approvals.

In November, Albemarle reported third‑quarter results that reflected improved operations amid continued lithium market headwinds. The company logged net sales of roughly US$1.31 billion, a slight year‑over‑year decline driven by lower energy storage pricing.

Albemarle generated US$356 million in quarterly cash from operations, noting the company remained on track to reduce full‑year capital expenditures to around US$600 million while targeting positive free cash flow of US$300 million to US$400 million in 2025.

Shares of Albemarle marked a year-to-date high of US$150.01 on December 26, amid strengthening lithium prices.

4. Lithium Americas (NYSE:LAC)

Year-to-date gain: 47 percent
Market cap: US$1.24 billion
Share price: US$4.41

US-focused Lithium Americas is developing its flagship Thacker lithium Pass project located in Humboldt County in northern Nevada. The project is a joint venture between Lithium Americas at 62 percent and General Motors (NYSE:GM) at 38 percent.

According to the company, Thacker Pass holds the “largest measured lithium reserve and resource in the world.”

In March, Lithium Americas secured a US$250 million investment from Orion Resource Partners to advance Phase 1 construction of the project, which is expected to fully cover development costs through the construction phase. On April 1, the joint venture partners made a final investment decision for the project, with completion targeted for late 2027.

Shares of Lithium Americas surged in late September, rising from US$3.07 to US$7.37 in three days. Its share price reached a 2025 high of US$10.05 on October 13.

Lithium Americas’ share price rose on news of renegotiation talks over its US$2.26 billion Department of Energy loan tied to the Thacker Pass project. According to media reports, the Trump administration was seeking up to a 10 percent equity stake as part of amendments to the loan’s repayment structure.

In response, Lithium Americas offered no-cost warrants for 5 to 10 percent of its shares and agreed to cover related administrative costs, while requesting changes to the amortization schedule without altering the loan’s term or interest.

An agreement was reached on October 1 and Lithium Americas received the first US$435 million installment of the loan on October 20.

The company ended the year by announcing it was being added to the S&P/TSX Composite Index (INDEXTSI:OSPTX).

5. Sigma Lithium (NASDAQ:SGML)

Year-to-date gain: 20.23 percent
Market cap: US$1.5 billion
Share price: US$13.49

Sigma Lithium is a Brazil-focused lithium producer supplying chemical-grade lithium concentrate to the global battery market. The company operates the Grota do Cirilo project in Minas Gerais, one of the world’s largest hard-rock lithium operations.

Sigma’s Greentech industrial lithium plant currently produces about 270,000 metric tons per year of lithium concentrate, equivalent to roughly 38,000 to 40,000 metric tons of LCE. The company is building a second processing plant that is expected to lift total capacity to approximately 520,000 metric tons of concentrate annually.

In September, Sigma Lithium’s flagship Grota do Cirilo operation in Brazil faced both regulatory scrutiny and operational disruption.

That month, Brazilian prosecutors requested a pause in operations after a technical review flagged shortcomings in the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment, citing potential water-management risks to the Piauí stream from planned open pits, a key water source for nearby communities, particularly during droughts.

While it denied issues with its EIA, Sigma paused mining to upgrade equipment and improve efficiency. The company phased down operations in September and shut the mine throughout October, leading to a sharp drop in output.

In mid-November, Sigma reported a strong Q3 2025, with net revenue rising 69 percent quarter-over-quarter and 36 percent year-over-year. The company generated US$24 million from final price settlements on sales completed by the end of Q3, with a further US$4 million in cash expected from additional settlements.

Sigma also expects to receive approximately US$33 million from the sale of 950,000 metric tons of lithium-bearing material that can be reprocessed by its customers, providing an additional near-term cash inflow.

Operationally, it said mining activities would restart by the end of November, with full ramp-up targeted for the first quarter of 2026. Because the company took over mining operations from its equipment contractor earlier in 2025, the restart is supported by upgraded equipment leased directly from manufacturers and operated in-house.

Sigma Lithium shares rose to a year-to-date high of US$14.50 on December 26.

Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, currently hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Rio Tinto, Glencore Restart Talks on US$260 Billion Mining Mega-Merger

No Comments

Commodities giants Rio Tinto (ASX:RIO,NYSE:RIO,LSE:RIO) and Glencore (LSE:GLEN,OTCPL:GLCNF) said on Thursday (January 8) that they have restarted talks about a potential business combination.

The two major miners spoke previously back in 2024, but failed to reach an agreement.

This time around, they say their preliminary discussions are centered around a combination of some or all of their businesses; this could include the acquisition of Glencore by Rio Tinto.

The news was first reported by the Financial Times, with both companies confirming the story via press release shortly thereafter. According to the news outlet, the combination of Rio Tinto and Glencore would create a massive mining company with an enterprise value north of US$260 billion.

The two firms have said there’s no guarantee that any transaction will go through.

However, it’s worth noting that Rio Tinto has changed leadership since the 2024 talks ended, with Simon Trott now at the helm. For its part, Glencore has reorganized its coal assets.

The Financial Times also notes that Glencore CEO Gary Nagle spoke last month about the importance of size in the mining industry, saying that bigger companies have various advantages.

“It makes sense to create bigger companies,” the executive explained to reporters. “Not just for the sake of size, but also to create material synergies, to create relevance, to attract talent, to attract capital.”

Regulations require Rio Tinto to announce its intentions either way by February 5 of this year.

Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Brightstar Resources

No Comments

Investor Insight

Brightstar is a cash-flowing gold producer with a 4.0Moz Mineral Resource base and two major development hubs advancing toward investment decisions. Mining from two high-grade underground mines in Laverton, continuous high-grade drilling success and near-term production expansion positions the company for significant value creation in a record gold price environment.

Overview

Gold continues to demonstrate its strength as a store of value, reaching record highs above US$4,000 per ounce in 2025 amid persistent global uncertainty, inflationary pressures and heightened geopolitical risk. In this environment, investors are increasingly turning to high-quality Australian gold producers with scale, growth visibility and near-term catalysts.

Aerial view of Brightstar Resources

Brightstar Resources (ASX:BTR) is strategically positioned to benefit from this macro setting as a cash-flowing, multi-asset gold producer and developer with operations and growth projects across the Goldfields (Laverton–Menzies) and Sandstone regions of Western Australia. The company now controls 3.9 Moz of mineral resources across these assets, providing a diversified and scalable platform for sustained growth.

Brightstar’s unique value proposition is centered on its existing production from two underground mines, which Brightstar operates directly rather than relying on external mining contractors. The Second Fortune and Fish underground mines are delivering consistent production under an ore purchase agreement with Genesis Minerals, generating cashflow that supports ongoing drilling and development studies.

Map of Brightstar Resources

The company’s growth is anchored by a dual-hub development strategy. In the Goldfields region, the company has completed a definitive feasibility study outlining ~70,000 ounces per annum of production over an initial five-year period, with a final investment decision targeted for early 2026. Ongoing underground and near-mine drilling continues to confirm mine life extensions and additional high-grade potential.

At Sandstone, Brightstar has consolidated a 2.4 Moz district-scale gold system following the Alto and Aurumin transactions and is now progressing a major PFS evaluating a new 4 to 5 Mtpa processing facility. More than 70,000 metres of drilling has already been completed toward a material mineral resource upgrade planned for mid-2026.

Together, these hubs underpin a pipeline of near-term and long-term catalysts supported by extensive infrastructure, a strengthened technical team, and a well-funded balance sheet. As Brightstar advances feasibility work, executes its multi-rig drilling programs, and expands its production profile, the company is well placed to deliver meaningful shareholder value in a rising gold price environment.

Company Highlights

  • ASX-listed gold producer and developer with a consolidated 3.9 Moz mineral resource base at 1.5 g/t gold, spanning the Goldfields portfolio (Laverton + Menzies projects) and the Sandstone Hub in Western Australia.
  • Established Goldfields production base, with Brightstar operating two underground mines – Second Fortune and Fish – within the Laverton area, supplying continuous gold production under an ore purchase agreement with Genesis Minerals.
  • Goldfields feasibility study (June 2025) completed, outlining ~70,000 oz of annual gold production over the first five years, with a final investment decision targeted for March 2026.
  • High-grade mine life growth targeted from the Goldfields underground mines, including depth and strike extensions at Fish and strong regional hits near Second Fortune.
  • Menzies Hub is positioned for future production, with Yunndaga advancing toward underground development following significant 2025 drill results, informing upcoming mineral resource and development updates.
  • Sandstone Hub expanded to 2.4 Moz at 1.5 g/t gold, with a major pre-feasibility study (PFS) underway for a 4 to 5 Mtpa processing facility and more than 70,000 m of drilling completed toward a material mineral resource upgrade in mid-2026.
  • Strong exploration momentum, with active drilling programs at Laverton and Sandstone and exceptional 2025 results, including 10 m @ 43.8 g/t gold at the Musketeer prospect.
  • Well-funded balance sheet, with ~$41 million in cash and liquidity (as of September 2025) and a revolving stockpile finance facility supporting continuous drilling and development activities.

Key Projects

Goldfields Assets (Laverton + Menzies)

Brightstar’s Goldfields portfolio combines the Laverton and Menzies hubs into a single, development-ready production centre. Together, these assets host a significant portion of Brightstar’s consolidated resource base and provide both near-term production and long-term growth opportunities.

Laverton Hub

Brightstar’s Laverton Hub comprises two operating underground mines – Second Fortune and Fish– and a series of advanced open pit deposits, including the material Cork Tree Well and Lord Byron Deposits. These deposits sit on granted mining leases and benefit from established haul roads, existing mine infrastructure, and proximity to Brightstar’s planned processing facility.

Map of gold mines and facilities near Laverton, featuring Brightstar Plant and nearby locations.

Highlights:

  • Two operating underground mines: Second Fortune and Fish continue to deliver steady production into Genesis Minerals’ Laverton mill under the ore purchase agreement. Recent underground and surface drilling has confirmed strong continuity of mineralisation at depth, particularly at Fish where multiple lodes have been intersected, including 7.0m @ 3.31 g/t gold, 9.9m @ 2.90 g/t gold, and 1.1m @ 17.6 g/t gold.
  • High-grade near-mine discoveries: At Second Fortune, drilling at nearby prospects such as Linden Giant and Alawa has returned strong results (10m @ 9.83 g/t gold; 1m @ 53.8 g/t gold), demonstrating the potential for new satellite ore sources within 3 km of existing mine workings.
  • Large-scale open pit opportunity: Cork Tree Well and Lord Byron remain central to Brightstar’s long-term development plan. The planning scenarios outlined in the June 2025 feasibility study support multi-year open pit mining with robust production profiles and strong economic potential.

Growth Drivers:

  • Ongoing underground drilling campaigns at Second Fortune and Fish targeting mine life extensions
  • DFS optimisation underway to refine the design and throughput of Brightstar’s proposed 1 Mtpa to 1.5 Mtpa processing plant
  • Continued evaluation of near-mine targets leveraging existing infrastructure and haulage routes
  • Integration of new high-grade drilling into updated open pit and underground mine plans

Menzies Hub

The Menzies Hub comprises a district-scale mineralised corridor extending more than 20 km along the Menzies Shear Zone. These deposits lie directly adjacent to the Goldfields Highway and sit on granted mining leases, supporting near-term development readiness.

Highlights

  • Substantial resource base: The Menzies Hub hosts 0.7Moz @ 1.5g/t Au of mineral resources across multiple deposits including Lady Shenton, Yunndaga, Aspacia and the Lady Harriet system.
  • Advancing underground development: Yunndaga is emerging as Brightstar’s next underground mining front, with drilling completed in 2025 returning high-grade intercepts such as 16m @ 8.03 g/t gold and 8m @ 6.67 g/t gold. These results will underpin updated mineral resource and ore reserve estimates planned for late 2025.
  • Open pit opportunities: Lady Shenton and surrounding deposits are expected to support a multi-year open pit mining schedule, forming part of the production base in the Goldfields feasibility study. Permitting and approvals work is progressing, with first production targeted post-FID.

Growth Drivers:

  • Updated mineral resource for Yunndaga to support underground mine planning
  • Feasibility study optimisation to refine timing and sequencing of Menzies open pits
  • Ongoing engagement with regional mills to evaluate toll-milling options where appropriate
  • Progression toward a mining decision following completion of study phases

Sandstone Hub

Brightstar’s Sandstone Hub has been transformed into a major district-scale opportunity following the consolidation of Alto Metals and Aurumin’s Sandstone assets. The combined project now contains 2.4 Moz at 1.5 g/t gold, spread across multiple open pit camps including Lords, Vanguard, Indomitable, Havilah and Montague.

Map showing Brighstar Resources

Highlights:

  • Significant resource growth platform: The ambition at Sandstone is to convert this extensive mineralised system into a long-life standalone operation. Brightstar has already completed more than 70,000 m of drilling since acquisition, with a major mineral resource update targeted for mid-2026.
  • High-grade exploration success: Recent drilling has delivered standout results such as 10 m @ 43.8 g/t gold at the Musketeer prospect, highlighting the potential for new high-grade zones within the broader system.
  • Processing pathway defined: A PFS is underway examining a new 4 to 5 Mtpa processing hub located at the historic Sandstone mill site, aiming to establish Sandstone as a cornerstone asset in Brightstar’s future growth.

Growth Drivers:

  • 120,000 m drilling program planned through June 2026 to upgrade key deposits to indicated category
  • PFS delivery targeted for mid-2026
  • Long-term development scenario supported by strong infrastructure and granted mining tenure

Management Team

Alex Rovira – Managing Director

Alex Rovira is a qualified geologist and an experienced investment banker having focused on the metals and mining sector since 2013. Rovira has experience in ASX equity capital markets activities, including capital raisings, IPOs and merger and acquisitions.

Richard Crookes – Non-executive Chairman

Richard Crookes has over 35 years’ experience in the resources and investments industries. He is a geologist by training having previously worked as the chief geologist and mining manager of Ernest Henry Mining in Australia. Crookes is managing partner of Lionhead Resources, a critical minerals investment fund and formerly an investment director at EMR Capital. Prior to that he was an executive director in Macquarie Bank’s Metals Energy Capital (MEC) division where he managed all aspects of the bank’s principal investments in mining and metals companies.

Andrew Rich – Executive Director

Andrew Rich is a degree qualified mining engineer from the WA School of Mines and has obtained a WA First Class Mine Managers Certificate. Rich has a strong background in underground gold mining with experience predominantly in the development of underground mines at Ramelius Resources (ASX:RMS) and Westgold Resources (ASX:WGX).

Jonathan Downes – Non-executive Director

Jonathan Downes has over 30 years’ experience in the minerals industry and has worked in various geological and corporate capacities. Experienced with gold and base metals, he has been intimately involved with the exploration process through to production. Downes is currently the managing director of Kaiser Reef, a high grade gold producer, and non-executive director of Cazaly Resources.

Nicky Martin – Chief Financial Officer

Nicky Martin is an experienced finance and accounting professional holding tertiary qualifications in accounting and finance and is a qualified CPA. Martin was previously the Head of Finance at Pilbara Minerals Ltd (ASX:PLS) where she oversaw and was actively involved in a rapidly growing mining success story.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Latest News

17 Republicans rebel against House GOP leaders, join Dems to pass Obamacare extension

No Comments

The House of Representatives passed a bill to revive and extend COVID-19 pandemic-era enhanced Obamacare subsidies in a major victory for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

Seventeen House Republicans broke ranks with GOP leaders to support the legislation after Democrats were successful in forcing a vote via a mechanism called a privileged resolution. The bill passed 230-196.

A discharge petition is a mechanism for getting legislation considered on the House floor even if the majority’s leadership is opposed to it, provided the petition gets a majority of House lawmakers’ signatures.

Jeffries filed a discharge petition late last year, which was then signed by four House Republicans — helping it clinch the critical majority threshold.

Five more House Republicans joined Democrats in a vote Wednesday evening to advance the legislation for final consideration Thursday.

The 17 Republicans who voted for the legislation were Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; Mike Lawler, R-N.Y.; Rob Bresnahan, R-Pa.; Ryan Mackenzie, R-Pa.; Mike Carey, R-Ohio; Monica De La Cruz, R-Texas; Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y.; Will Hurd, R-Colo.; Dave Joyce, R-Ohio; Tom Kean Jr., R-N.J., Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., Max Miller, R-Ohio; Zach Nunn, R-Iowa; Maria Salazar, R-Fla.; Dave Valadao, R-Calif.; Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis.; and Rob Wittman, R-Va.

It underscores the perilously slim margins Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is governing with.

House Republicans hold just a two-vote majority with full attendance on both sides, numbers that could easily shift when lawmakers are absent for personal or health reasons.

As Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., put to reporters on Wednesday morning, ‘We are one flu season away from losing the majority.’

The successful vote on Thursday is a blow for Johnson, who argued for weeks that the majority of House Republicans were opposed to extending the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax subsidies.

But a significant number of GOP moderates were frustrated that their party leaders in the House and Senate had done little to avert a price hike for millions of Americans’ insurance premiums. 

A Democrat-controlled Congress voted twice, in 2020 and in 2021, to enhance Obamacare subsidies to give more people access to federal healthcare during the pandemic.

Those subsidies were only extended through 2025, however.

The vast majority of Republicans believe the subsidies are a COVID-era relic of a long-broken federal healthcare system. Conservatives argued that the relatively small percentage of Americans who rely on Obamacare meant that an extension would do little to ease rising health costs that people across the country are experiencing.

But a core group of moderates has been arguing that a failure to extend a reformed version of them would force millions of Americans to grapple with skyrocketing healthcare costs this year.

Those moderates were also frustrated with Jeffries for not working with Republicans on a bipartisan solution to the subsidies but felt they were left with little choice but to support Democrats’ bid in the end.

House Republicans passed a healthcare bill in mid-December aimed at lowering those costs for a broader swath of Americans, but that legislation has not been taken up in the Senate.

There’s also little chance the three-year extension will pass the upper chamber, however. Similar legislation led by Senate Democrats failed to reach the necessary 60-vote threshold to advance in December.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More