As deadline looms, Sen. Scott Wiener introduces bill to fund Bay Area transit
SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) — With a crucial deadline for a vote on potentially service cuts to SF Muni looming, State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) has introduced a bill to provide funding to Bay Area transit systems. The legislation, SB 63, would provide long-term, stable funding to BART, Muni, AC Transit and Caltrain by leveraging a multi-county revenue measure.
Counties included in the ballot measure are Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco. Sen. Wiener said they are also working with San Mateo County to also opt in in the coming months. The measure would propose a sales tax to support transit and stave off service cuts.
VTA announces new offer to union employees as strike enters 3rd week
According to Sen. Wiener, the measure would solve BART and AC Transit's funding shortfall and contribute significantly to Muni's budget shortfall. If San Mateo County opts in, it would also contribute significantly to Caltrain's shortfall.
'If we do nothing, major systems (BART, Muni, AC Transit, Caltrain) will be forced into massive service cuts,' said Wiener in a post on Reddit. 'That would be horrific for San Francisco and the Bay Area as a whole.'
Public transit in the Bay Area has struggled to recover in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. With more workers working remotely, BART ridership has yet to rebound to pre-pandemic ridership numbers.
'Service has gotten better — but work remains,' Wiener said.
The bill, which was co-authored by State Sen. Jesse Arreguin (D-Berkeley) comes just a week ahead of a vote by the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency Board of Directors vote. On April 1, the board is expected to vote on summer service cuts that would see service reduced on several SFMTA lines.
'Transit in the Bay Area isn't optional,' Wiener said. 'It's part of our region's lifeblood. It's essential to our economy. Without it, a huge number of people won't be able to get to work or school and traffic congestion will get much worse. We know what it'll take to stop these service cuts and we're working to get that done.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Best Stock to Buy: Macy's vs. Dick's Sporting Goods
While tariffs are a headache for retail, that doesn't necessarily mean the space should be avoided entirely. Dick's Sporting Goods has enjoyed a few years of growth in a turnaround from what was a stagnant business. Macy's, on the other hand, is struggling with weak annual top-line growth and it is shuttering stores. 10 stocks we like better than Dick's Sporting Goods › Retail is a confusing segment right now, with the price of goods impacted via increases in tariffs causing a tougher situation for not only consumers, but also sellers and producers. Let's take a look at two major retailers, Macy's (NYSE: M) and Dick's Sporting Goods (NYSE: DKS). In all, I think one of these two retail titans is showing more signs of life, whereas the other is being forced to shrink to improve its bottom line. Macy's saw an uptick in the few years following the COVID-19 outbreak but has since been in slow stagnation, with revenue declining over the last two years. Looking into 2025, the retailer's first quarter beat estimates, but the overall outlook underwhelmed. The company reported adjusted earnings of $0.16 per share versus estimates of $0.14 per share, while total revenue came in at $4.60 billion compared to expectations of $4.50 billion. From another perspective, things didn't look that great. While revenue came in above expectations, it trailed last year's total sales of roughly $4.85 billion. Operating income fell 24.8% year over year to $94 million, and net income declined 38.7% to $38 million. Diluted earnings per share declined from $0.22 in the first quarter of 2024 to $0.13 per diluted share this year. These year-over-year declines are something that is haunting Macy's and putting downward pressure on the stock. For this year, the company reiterated net sales guidance in the range of $21 billion to $21.4 billion. In comparison, it reported sales of $22.29 billion in 2024. All in all, Macy's cut its profit outlook for the year and expects to raise prices on products to offset the impact of tariffs on its goods. In contrast, Dick's Sporting Goods has done surprisingly OK. First-quarter results included a 5.2% year-over-year increase in sales revenue, to roughly $3.18 billion, while non-GAAP income was flat at $275 million. The company has been building sales annually and provided good guidance for 2025, reiterating its previous expectations of $13.80 to $14.40 in earnings per share. The high end of that range would beat out 2024, which finished with diluted earnings per share of $14.05. Net sales are expected to be in the range of $13.6 billion to $13.9 billion, which would outperform last year's revenue of $13.45 billion. Dick's is also looking to expand through its announced acquisition of Foot Locker for $2.5 billion. This drastically increases the company's position within shoes and sets up Dick's for future growth, as Foot Locker had been in the midst of a turnaround itself. This story is a comparison of a company that is shuttering stores in an attempt to become a leaner machine, relative to a company that seemingly is looking to grow. Though improvement is slow, Dick's has been reporting better year-over-year sales figures than Macy's, with plans to open new stores and even make an acquisition, whereas Macy's plans to close over 100 locations and raise prices. While the potential for tariffs to cause headaches for both of these companies is something to be mindful of, I think you have to go with Dick's Sporting Goods here. Its diversified offerings give it a broader consumer base, while Macy's is more heavily concentrated in clothing, perfumes, etc. Unlike a lot of tech, there's still some value in retail, with Dick's trading at a little over 12 times earnings and offering a 2.73% dividend yield. While the short term might be a bit choppy due to tariffs, long-term this company seems to be making the right moves. Before you buy stock in Dick's Sporting Goods, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Dick's Sporting Goods wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 David Butler has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Best Stock to Buy: Macy's vs. Dick's Sporting Goods was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
AGNC Investment: Its High Yield Looks Tempting -- Why the Stock May Be Ready to Rebound
With a high yield and monthly dividend payout, AGNC often draws the attention of income-oriented investors. However, AGNC has struggled in recent years due to rising mortgage rates and an inverted yield curve. The setup for the stock now looks a lot more favorable. 10 stocks we like better than AGNC Investment Corp. › AGNC Investment (NASDAQ: AGNC) has one of the highest dividend yields in the market, sitting at about 16%. But with a stock price that's steadily declined the past few years, investors are right to ask: Is the payout sustainable, and more importantly, is the stock a buy today? For those unfamiliar, AGNC is a mortgage real estate investment trust (mREIT) that owns agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS), primarily guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because these securities are backed by government agencies, they carry virtually no credit risk. But AGNC's business is far from risk-free, and here's where the story gets complicated. The biggest issue facing AGNC the past few years has been higher mortgage interest rates. There have been two main issues that have pushed up rates. One is that the Federal Reserve aggressively raised benchmark interest rates a couple of years ago to combat inflation. This resulted in mortgage rates also climbing. However, that was not the only reason mortgage rates shot up. Spreads between MBS yields and Treasury yields also began to significantly widen. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fed was a huge buyer of MBSs, driving down yields and narrowing the yield spread between MBS and Treasuries. However, after the pandemic, it stopped purchasing MBSs and began letting them roll off its balance sheet as they matured. About the same time, banks also began to back off buying MBS as bond prices fell, and the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, which was heavily concentrated in long-duration MBSs, only pushed banks further away from the MBS market. During this period, the value of AGNC's MBS portfolio, as measured by its tangible book value (TBV), plunged. From the end of 2021 through the end of 2023, AGNC's tangible book dropped 45% from $15.75 to $8.70 per share. It has slipped a bit further since, and stood at $8.25 at the end of Q1 2025. Ultimately, where AGNC's TBV goes, its stock is sure to follow. Despite the rough stretch that AGNC has seen, the setup for the stock now looks a lot more favorable. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has signaled that more rate cuts could be on the table, and the Fed's own projections point to lower rates in the years ahead. That should be a much better environment for AGNC. Fed rate cuts could benefit AGNC in two main ways. First, it would likely reduce its short-term funding costs; AGNC tries to borrow money to invest in MBSs with longer maturities and higher yields. Second, lower rates could help increase its TBV by boosting MBS valuations. The past few years, the Treasury yield curve was inverted, which means that shorter-term Treasuries, like the two-year, had a higher yield than long-term Treasuries, like the 10-year. Not surprisingly, this is not a good environment for a company that generates its income from the spread between short- and long-term rates. Now, AGNC actively hedges out its funding costs to better align them with the duration of its MBS assets. However, it's not able to fully offset the pressure from an inverted curve over an extended period of time. With the yield curve flipping from inverted to positive (long-term yields being higher than short-term yields) late last year, though, AGNC stands to benefit from wider spreads. AGNC's portfolio is also well-positioned if MBS yields begin to fall. More than 80% of its holdings carry coupons of 6% or lower, which helps limit prepayment risk. Prepayment risk is highest when homeowners begin to refinance into lower-rate mortgages, forcing mortgage REITs to reinvest in lower-yielding MBS. While high dividend yields are attractive, they can also be a warning sign. However, AGNC has maintained the payout through a very difficult environment, albeit sometimes at the expense of a lower tangible book value. It's not fair to say the dividend is completely safe, but if the yield curve continues to steepen, the dividend should become more sustainable. If MBS-to-Treasury yield spreads narrow from historically wide levels as banks or other institutions reenter the MBS market, AGNC could see a meaningful recovery in both its book value and share price. That's the best-case scenario. However, even if that doesn't play out, AGNC still has room to deliver solid total returns. The company pays a monthly dividend of $0.12 per share, which equates to a yield of about 16% based on recent prices for the stock. That dividend income alone puts it in a strong position to outperform in a market that seems to have stalled. With even a modest portfolio value recovery, AGNC could deliver annual 20% to 25% total returns during the next few years. Overall, I'd consider AGNC a high-risk, high-reward income play. However, the stock has already taken the brunt of the blow from higher interest rates and wide MBS-to-Treasury yield spreads, and the current environment may finally be turning in its favor. The wild card is whether historically wide MBS-to-Treasury spreads begin to narrow, because if they do, the upside could be significant. For investors who understand and are comfortable with the risks, AGNC offers a very high yield with strong potential upside. It's not a set-it-and-forget-it stock, but at current prices, it could be a smart investment for income-focused investors during the next few years. Before you buy stock in AGNC Investment Corp., consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and AGNC Investment Corp. wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Geoffrey Seiler has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. AGNC Investment: Its High Yield Looks Tempting -- Why the Stock May Be Ready to Rebound was originally published by The Motley Fool
Boston Globe
11 hours ago
- Boston Globe
It's a really bad time to be an expert in Washington
At the Pentagon, 14 advisory boards have been dismantled, with curt, thank-you-for-your-service notes sent to Democrats and Republicans alike. Some of the boards dealt with obscure matters. But others focused on vital issues, like rethinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal as China's nuclear buildup, Russian President Vladimir Putin's episodic nuclear threats and Trump's ambitious demand for a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system have changed the nature of nuclear strategy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also gone: the board of experts who were trying to learn lessons from China's astoundingly successful hack into the country's telecommunications networks -- where, by all accounts, the hackers remain to this day. Then came historians at the State Department and the climate specialists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which employed experts in weather, oceans, climate and biodiversity. Advertisement The National Weather Service lost so many people that the agency had to hire some back. No such luck for researchers relying on the National Science Foundation, where projects are disappearing every month. Advertisement No one killed off the expert advisory board at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it deliberated whether healthy children should receive the COVID vaccine. They did not have to. While it weighed the pros and cons, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his colleagues announced that they had already made their decision. When the history of these tumultuous past four months is written, it will doubtless focus on the moments when teams from the Department of Government Efficiency shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development, when the president issued tariff threats to much of the world and when he went to war with Harvard. Less noticed, perhaps, may be the devastation of the expert class, which once dominated the city, moving between think tanks and government offices, generating alternative views in its best moments, engaging in groupthink at its worst. Today, the experts are swelling the ranks of Washington's suddenly unemployed. To the MAGA faithful, each one of these disbanded groups is a victory for a trimmer government that follows the president's wishes. To them, the National Security Council was the heart of the so-called deep state, whose members testified against Trump during his first impeachment inquiry. The raft of advisory committees mostly slowed down decision-making, they argued, when they were not undercutting policies they did not like. Worse yet, they were the source of leaks. So if an advisory committee of experts was not needed to help James K. Polk, the 11th president, figure out how to spread the United States to the West Coast, why do we need them to figure out the strategy for adding Greenland and Canada? (The expansionist Polk has been restored to a place of pride in the Oval Office -- his portrait now hangs just below and to the right of Thomas Jefferson's.) Advertisement Part of Trump's problem with experts is their portrayal as neutral arbiters, more interested in the data than presidential spin. That is what has led to the White House this week trying to discredit the Congressional Budget Office, which concluded that, yes, the new tax bill could really add $2.4 trillion to the national debt, no matter the spin. Lacking the authority to fire the budget experts there, the White House turned to casting them as politically biased. And while every new president replaces board members and demands some fealty to the new leader's ideology, what has happened in the past four months seems to some in the federal government more like China's cultural revolution, where the only good ideas are the ones that flow from the leader, and both research reports and intelligence findings should support the president's desires. And when they are not, trouble follows. Just ask the National Intelligence Council, a small subset of intelligence experts -- many drawn from academia -- what happened when it came to the conclusion that the Venezuelan government was not controlling a criminal gang, an argument that Trump had used to justify deportations. The experts were told to 'do some rewriting' so the material could not be used against the president and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence. After the intelligence findings were left unchanged, the board's leadership resisted and was removed. The whole institution is being moved into Gabbard's organization, where its independent judgments can be better controlled. Advertisement At the Environmental Protection Agency, self-protective action has replaced scientific inquiry. 'We've taken the words 'climate' and 'green energy' off every project document,' one scientist still in the government's employ said recently, refusing to speak on the record for obvious reasons. Veterans of Trump's first term say these changes are a manifestation of the president's bitter memories. 'I think somebody convinced President Trump, based on his experience in his first administration, that his own staff would be the biggest obstructionists,' H.R. McMaster, Trump's second national security adviser, said at a conference on artificial intelligence and national security Wednesday. (Trump's current national security adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is one of around a half dozen across both terms.) While McMaster, now at Stanford, said he did not object to shrinking the National Security Council staff, he worried that also lost would be the capacity to run 'a deliberative process, which I think would be kind of nice on some of these issues, like tariffs, to clarify what you are trying to achieve.' 'Deliberative process' appears to be exactly what Trump is trying to avoid. And if that means eviscerating the expert class, so be it. It helps explain why the Department of Government Efficiency was given license to wipe out USAID. McMaster is hardly alone in concluding that some of the aid agency's programs had 'drifted.' Many Democrats say they agree, though almost never on the record. But McMaster gave voice to the question raised all over Washington when he asked, 'Should you just crush the entire organization or recognize there is a mission for that organization to advance American interests?' It was crushed, with foreign service officers, child health experts and others locked out of the offices. And that has led to both professional and personal angst. Advertisement 'If you work in the field of maternal and child health, you are in trouble,' said Jessica Harrison Fullerton, a managing director at the Global Development Incubator, a nonprofit that is trying to fill some of the gaps USAID's dismantlement left. 'Not only are you devastated by the impacts on the people you have been serving, but your expertise is now being questioned and your ability to use that expertise is limited because the jobs are gone.' In fact, what many of Washington's experts discovered was that crushing the organizations -- and putting their experts out on the street -- was the point of the exercise. It helped create a frisson of fear, and reinforced the message of who was in control. It has also led to warnings from more traditional Republicans that Trump's demand for loyalty over analysis is creating a trap for himself. 'Groupthink and a blinkered mindset are dangers for any administration,' said Richard Fontaine, the CEO of the Center for a New American Security, which, in the days of bipartisanship, described itself as a bipartisan think tank. 'Pulling from multiple sources in and outside of government to develop solid options for foreign policy decision makers is the way to go.' Well, maybe in the Washington of a previous era. Within a 200-yard radius of USAID, DOGE teams moved into the Wilson Center, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank that had significant private funding and money from Congress. They shuttered it, from its Cold War archives to the Kennan Institute, one of the country's leading collections of scholars about Russia. At a moment when superpower conflict is back, it was the kind of place that presented alternative views. Advertisement DOGE was unimpressed. Like their USAID colleagues in another part of the Ronald Reagan Building, they were soon stuffing their notes into cartons and discovering their computer access had been shut down. (The Wilson Center also sponsored book writers, including some from The New York Times.) The war on expertise has raised some fundamental questions that may not be answerable until after the Trump administration is over. Will the experts stick around -- after hiding out in the private sector or changing professions -- only to reoccupy the 'swamp'? And more immediately, what damage is being done in what may be the country's defining challenge: the competition with China over artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons, electric vehicles, quantum computing? That is what many in the intelligence agencies worry about, not least because Europe is already openly recruiting disillusioned American scientists, and China's intelligence services are looking for the angry and abandoned. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor who writes often on the U.S.-China technological and military competitions, told an audience at the AI Summit on Wednesday that America is not acting like it understands that 'China has emerged as a full-spectrum competitor.' 'Our secret sauce,' he said, has been the American ability to 'recruit the most talented people in the world. Einstein didn't come from America.' 'The idea that we would be taking action that would undermine that makes no sense to any strategic thinker,' he said. Of course, those strategic thinkers rank among the suspect class of Washington experts. This article originally appeared in
