Czech populist opposition leads as election set for October
PRAGUE (Reuters) - Czechs will hold parliamentary elections on October 3-4, President Petr Pavel said on Tuesday, setting the stage for a contest between the unpopular, centre-right governing coalition and a populist opposition allied with Europe's far right.
The opposition ANO party led by former Prime Minister Andrej Babis leads opinion polls by a wide margin ahead of Prime Minister Petr Fiala's Spolu (Together) coalition, which has been strongly supportive of Ukraine.
Forming a majority to back a new government will depend on the performance of smaller parties including both government and opposition groups that are uncertain to win any seats in parliament.
Under Fiala, the Czech Republic shipped heavy weapons to help Kyiv soon after the Russian invasion in February 2022 and has led an initiative to find and fund artillery ammunition for Ukraine's defence. ANO has been critical of the efforts.
Babis has rallied supporters by promising harsher limits on migration to Europe, and is a self-proclaimed supporter of Donald Trump, although he has criticised tariff increases.
ANO is part of the far-right Patriots for Europe group in European Parliament alongside the Fidesz party of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and France's National Rally of Marine Le Pen.
The elections are to parliament's lower house which has a four-year term and approves a new prime minister along with the cabinet.
In an opinion poll by the Kantar agency for Czech Television released on Sunday, ANO led with 35% backing ahead of 19.5% for Spolu.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
30 minutes ago
- Fox News
DNC trolls Trump on tariffs with free 'TACO' truck parked outside RNC headquarters
FIRST ON FOX – The Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Tuesday parked a custom-wrapped food truck in front of the Republican National Committee (RNC) headquarters in Washington, D.C. The rented truck, decked out with images of President Donald Trump, served up a free mouth-watering lunch option to passers-by. However, in Washington, there is no such thing as a free lunch – and this stunt was no exception. The food truck was a taco truck, and the tacos came with a side of trolling: a policy-themed jab at Trump's tariff record, one the DNC sees as a major vulnerability heading into 2026. The DNC's renting and customization of the taco truck, as well as its plans to hand out free Trump-branded tacos to passers-by, was previewed exclusively to Fox News Digital. It looks to seize on the acronym TACO, or "Trump Always Chickens Out," to provoke Trump's ire. The phrase was coined by Wall Street analysts when referring to Trump's tariff policies – and more specifically, espousing the view among some that Trump will walk back the steep reciprocal tariffs he announced in April, which are currently playing out in federal courts. Beyond simply presenting a moral quagmire to hungry RNC employees and other Hill staffers, DNC officials told Fox News that they see the truck as an effective way to draw attention to Trump's tariff policies, which they described as "playing games with working families' livelihoods." "Trump always chickens out – we're just bringing the tacos to match," DNC Chair Ken Martin told Fox News Digital of the effort. "Instead of realizing his tariff chaos is wrecking the economy, Trump continues to drag America towards more economic pain, and the rest of the world sees Trump for exactly what he is: a chicken," he added. They also previewed the customized wrap of the truck, seen below: The food truck comes as Trump's power to enact sweeping tariffs has come under legal scrutiny. There's also an open question of whether the administration would actually move forward with the harsh import fees. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent previously acknowledged that the threat of tariffs could be used as more of a negotiating tactic or opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China, and described Trump's uncertainty in the process to reporters last week as a means of "strategic uncertainty in the negotiations." As of this writing, three separate federal courts are weighing Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to stand up the harsh import fees. The plan, which Trump announced on April 2, invokes IEEPA for both his 10% baseline tariff on most U.S. trading partners and a so-called "reciprocal tariff" against other countries. The administration has appealed two lower court decisions that blocked his use of the law to either enact or threaten to enact the harsh tariffs. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stayed a lower court order from the U.S. Court of International Trade, allowing Trump's tariff policy to continue, for now, while the court continues to investigate the merits of the case. Two other lower court challenges remain in flux. In the meantime, however, the moniker TACO has gotten under the president's skin. Last week, Trump blasted a reporter who asked him about the phrase, describing it as a "nasty question." "Don't ever say what you said," Trump told the reporter. "To me, that's the nastiest question," he said. "I chicken out, oh, I have never heard that," Trump said, noting that lowering the tariffs was part of an ongoing "negotiation" with China. He continued: "You mean because I reduced China from 145% that I set down to 100 and then down to another number? I said, 'You have to open your whole country.'" Democrats are using the truck to seize on what they see as a clear sore spot for the president, and a way of tying Trump more directly to any market uncertainty and turmoil that has come as a result of the tariffs. It comes as the party has struggled to coalesce around a unifying message in the aftermath of the 2024 elections. The party has been criticized for failing to seize on Elon Musk's departure from his official role in the Trump administration at the end of May, and for focusing its energy on attacking intraparty strategies and DNC board members, rather than going after the RNC more broadly. The taco truck stunt signals a shift in strategy, as Democrats adopt a more Trump-style approach to political attacks ahead of the 2026 midterms. But some of their efforts have missed the mark. Earlier this week, conservative commentators took aim at a TikTok posted by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), in which he is filmed eating a taco in an attempt to mock Trump's tariff strategy, with some declaring it "cringeworthy." DNC officials did not respond to Fox News Digital's questions on whether the party plans to pursue the tariff strategy beyond the taco truck, or if it sees these issues as a way to counter Trump and his allies with red state voters in the midterms and beyond.
Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why Do We Care How Much We Spend On Medicaid?
The U.S. has fewer hospital beds per person than Europe does. In evaluating the success of Obamacare in general and Medicaid expansion in particular, reporters and commentators have tended to focus on only one measure: the increase in the number of people with health insurance. At the same time, in evaluating the health consequences of the House Republican reconciliation measure, almost all the focus has been on the number of people who will lose health insurance. The implicit premise in all of this is: more health insurance means more health care and less health insurance means less health care. That has been the premise behind virtually every important piece of health care legislation going all the way back to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in1965. Yet the premise ignores a fundamental economic principle: no matter what happens to the demand for care, there won't be a change in health care delivered unless there is a change in supply. Under Obamacare, we are certainly spending more money. The annual cost of Medicaid expansion is $130 billion and the cost of exchange subsidies is more than $60 billion. What are we getting in return for all this extra spending? Although there has been a substantial increase in the number of people with health insurance, one study finds that there has been no overall increase in health care. In fact, the nation may be getting less care. In 2023, 13 years after the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), the number of hospital admissions per capita was 19 percent lower and the number of hospital days was18 percent lower than the year the act was passed. In the 9 years following the passage of Obamacare, doctor visits per capita declined by 18%. Further, our health care resources appear to be quite skimpy in comparison to other developed countries. Today, the United States has 2.7 doctors per 1,000 people, while the European average is 4.1. The U.S. has fewer than three hospital beds per 1,000 residents. The EU has more than five. And our country doesn't seem to be getting any healthier. Life expectancy in 2024 was lower than it was ten years earlier. As for Medicaid, numerous studies through the years have produced conflicting results on what difference the program makes for enrollee health. Yet these studies suffer from all the problems that are inherent in making inferences from population statistics. One study was different. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that examined the medical condition of real people. Medicaid enrollees were selected by lottery and after two years the investigators compared the medical condition of those who enrolled with those who didn't. The results: enrollees had less financial stress and were less likely to be depressed, but there was no difference in their physical health. One of the Oregon investigators, MIT economist Amy Finkelstein, helps us understand those results. People without health insurance, she notes, still get about 80 percent of the health care that Medicaid enrollees get. And when they are confronted with high medical bills, they actually pay only a small portion of them. You might suppose that Medicaid enrollees are less likely to rely on hospital emergency rooms. The reverse is true. Once they enroll, Medicaid patients increase their trips to the emergency room by 40 percent. This may explain why Medicaid enrollees place a very low value on enrollment. If you were to offer to buy their Medicaid insurance coverage, it appears that the average enrollee would sell her insurance for as little as 20 cents on the dollar. Moreover, among the lottery winners who were offered enrollment in Oregon, more than half turned the offer down! By implication, these folks placed no value on the opportunity to enroll. These findings have convinced Finkelstein (certainly no right-winger) that rather than giving low-income families more Medicaid, we should give them cash instead. Here is one way to do that. Private companies managing Medicaid (or the state itself) should be able to make deposits to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) that would cover, say, all primary care. Enrollees would be restricted to using the money for health care during an insurance year. With these funds, they would be able to pay market prices (instead of Medicaid fees) at doctor's offices, walk-in clinics and urgent care centers – allowing them to buy medical care the way they buy food with food stamps. This would allow low-income families to have the same health care opportunities that middle-income families have. At the end of the insurance period, they could withdraw any unspent funds for any purpose. If there were no taxes or penalties for non-medical withdrawals, health care and non-health care would be trading against each other on a level playing field under the tax law. People wouldn't spend a dollar on health care unless they got a dollar's worth of value. An early study by the RAND Corporation suggests that these accounts could reduce Medicaid spending by 30 percent. Excluding payments for the disabled and nursing home care, the savings would amount to almost $1 trillion over ten years. This saving would be shared by the beneficiaries and the taxpayers who fund Medicaid. This is one way to resolve the impasse in the Senate over the House reconciliation bill. HSAs for Medicaid are a way to make the program better for enrollees and cut spending at the same time.
Forbes
34 minutes ago
- Forbes
Circle Going Public On June 4: What Is The Future Of CRCL?
Representation of cryptocurrency and Circle logo displayed on a screen in the background are seen in ... More this illustration photo taken in Krakow, Poland on June 10, 2022. (Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images) One of the most anticipated events in crypto business this year is set for Wednesday. Circle, the company behind USDC—the world's second-largest stablecoin—is going public on the New York Stock Exchange. It will offer 32 million Class A shares at a range of $27-28 under the ticker CRCL, aiming for a $7.2 billion valuation. Circle may seem like an easy bet: issue stablecoins, invest the reserves in Treasuries, and earn risk-free yield while users essentially lend their dollars interest-free. But behind this seemingly simple model lies a more complex and vulnerable business. The future of interest rates remains uncertain, margins are split, and partnerships are costly. In a winner-takes-most market, Circle must outpace the impact of potentially falling rates by capturing a larger share of the stablecoin market—or simply by growing with it. Additionally, the firm's long-term success may also depend on its ability to diversify and build synergy across its products. Stablecoins have quietly become the backbone of crypto markets—and are increasingly relevant for traditional finance. In 2024, stablecoin transaction volume reached $27.6 trillion, overtaking the combined volume of Visa and Mastercard by almost 8%. The total stablecoin market cap now stands at $248 billion. Circle's USDC holds a 25% share—second only to Tether's USDT at 61%—and accounts for $60 billion of the total. Circle's EURC leads among euro-backed stablecoins with a $224 million market cap. USD-pegged stablecoin supply. Source: DefiLlama Where Circle stands out is in regulatory compliance. In the U.S., USDC has positioned itself as a compliant bridge between the crypto ecosystem and traditional finance. In the EU, the implementation of MiCA—and the resulting delisting of non-compliant stablecoins like USDT from major regulated exchanges—has paved the way for USDC to become the region's leading stablecoin. Citi's recent report estimates that the stablecoin market could reach a size of $1.6 trillion by 2030 in its base case. Circle, with its compliance-first approach, is well positioned to benefit. Circle's main revenue stream — 99% of it — comes from investing stablecoin reserves, primarily in short-term U.S. Treasuries. In 2024, this model proved highly lucrative, generating roughly $1.6 billion in interest income. However, that reliance also exposes a risk of over-dependence on interest rates. As Todd H. Baker, a senior fellow at Columbia University, wrote in the Financial Times, Another concern is distribution cost. Of Circle's $1.6 billion revenue, over $1 billion went to 'distribution, transaction, and other costs,' according to the company's S-1 filing. The bulk of that went to Coinbase—Circle's former USDC co-manager and now a key partner. Circle consolidated statements of operations, Circle S-1 filing. Source: SEC After dissolving the Centre Consortium in 2023, Circle took full control of USDC in exchange for a new revenue-sharing agreement. Under this deal, Coinbase receives 50% of the residual yield from USDC reserves and 100% of the interest generated by USDC balances held on its platform. In return, Coinbase pledged to 'support USDC' and 'help drive long-term success of the stablecoin ecosystem.' As per Coinbase's 2024 report, the agreement runs for an initial term of three years. After that, Coinbase and Circle will 'discuss in good faith whether any modifications to the Circle Agreement are warranted.' If no new terms are agreed upon, the deal automatically renews for another three years—unless either side fails to meet its obligations. With most of its revenue linked to interest rates and a significant share going to Coinbase, Circle's long-term prospects could increasingly depend on its ability to diversify. And the diversification effort seems to be underway. Beyond USDC and EURC stablecoins, Circle offers: While revenues from CPN and USYC weren't included in the S-1 (both too recent), they could effectively diversify Circle's revenue streams. The CPN in particular could evolve into a blockchain-native alternative to SWIFT—one that's programmable, compliance-aware, and built for 24/7 financial infrastructure. It's a compelling bet in a payments market estimated at around $2 trillion annually, as per BCG. USYC, meanwhile, enters the booming market of yield-bearing stablecoins and tokenized treasuries. Assets in such products surged 490% in 2024—from $1.4 billion to $8.25 billion—and now approach $10 billion, according to Stablewatch. In the segment led by BlackRock-backed Ethena's sUSDe and Sky's (formerly MakerDAO) sUSDS and sDAI, USYC is still a minor player, holding 4% of the market. Yield-bearing stablecoins (market cap over $40M). Source: Stablewatch Investors appear to think so. According to Bloomberg, Circle's IPO was already significantly oversubscribed by May 28. Today, the company responded by increasing its valuation target from previously announced $5.65 billion to $7.2 billion. The investors might be onto something. Stablecoins are becoming the de facto digital dollars—especially in a U.S. environment increasingly hostile to CBDCs. Their addressable market spans global remittances, institutional payments, and DeFi integrations. The infrastructure and regulatory positioning that Circle has built could give it a head start, even as traditional giants like JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, and Citi intend to conceive their own stablecoin. As Benjamin Billarant, founder of Balthazar Capital—an asset management firm with strong exposure to crypto-related equities—commented, Indeed, the bipartisan GENIUS Act—America's most comprehensive stablecoin bill yet—passed the Senate on May 21 and now heads to the House. Following the vote, President Trump's Crypto Czar David Sacks said that the GENIUS Act will "pass with significant bipartisan support." The timing couldn't be better for Circle's IPO indeed. All in all, Circle isn't just a bet on interest rates—it's a bet on the future of regulated crypto finance. With stablecoin adoption growing and a compliance-first model, Circle could become a key pillar of tomorrow's payment system. For $CRCL holders, the challenge will be navigating the gradual shift from "easy" rate-driven gains to a more demanding reliance on product-driven revenue. Whether Circle can evolve in time is the question the IPO asks—and the market will soon answer.
