Korea Presidential Aide Pushes for Gradual Corporate Stock Plan
The proposal is part of a broader set of initiatives by President Lee Jae Myung — backed by lawmakers in his Democratic Party, which holds a legislative majority — to bolster the local stock market they view as undervalued compared to regional peers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Best money market account rates today, July 27, 2025 (best account provides 4.41% APY)
Find out how much you could earn with today's money market account rates. The Federal Reserve cut its target rate three times in 2024. So deposit rates — including money market account (MMA) rates — have started falling. It's more important than ever to compare MMA rates and ensure you earn as much as possible on your balance. Overview of money market account rates today The national average money market account rate stands at 0.62%, according to the FDIC. Even so, some of the top accounts are currently offering rates of 4% APY and up. Since these rates may not be around much longer, consider opening a money market account now to take advantage of today's high rates. Here's a look at some of the top MMA rates available today:Additionally, the table below features some of the best savings and money market account rates available today from our verified partners. How much interest can I earn with a money market account? The amount of interest you can earn from a money market account depends on the annual percentage rate (APY). This is a measure of your total earnings after one year when considering the base interest rate and how often interest compounds (money market account interest typically compounds daily). Say you put $1,000 in an MMA at the average interest rate of 0.64% with daily compounding. At the end of one year, your balance would grow to $1,006.42 — your initial $1,000 deposit, plus just $6.42 in interest. Now let's say you choose a high-yield money market account that offers 4% APY instead. In this case, your balance would grow to $1,040.81 over the same period, which includes $40.81 in interest. The more you deposit in a money market account, the more you stand to earn. If we took our same example of a money market account at 4% APY, but deposit $10,000, your total balance after one year would be $10,408.08, meaning you'd earn $408.08 in interest.
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
How redistricting in Texas and California could change the game for House elections
WASHINGTON — Congressional redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau or in response to a court ruling. Now, Texas Republicans want to break that tradition — and California and other states could follow suit. President Trump has asked the Texas Legislature to create districts, in time for next year's midterm elections, that could send five more Republicans to Washington and make it harder for Democrats to regain the House majority and blunt his agenda. Texas has 38 seats in the House of Representatives. Republicans now hold 25 and Democrats 12, with one seat vacant after the death of Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner in March. 'There's been a lot more efforts by the parties and political actors to push the boundaries — literally and figuratively — to reconfigure what the game is,' said Doug Spencer, the Ira C. Rothgerber Jr. chair in constitutional law at the University of Colorado. Other states, including California, are waiting to see what Texas does and whether to follow suit. The rules of redistricting can be vague and variable; each state has its own set of rules and procedures. Politicians are gauging what voters will tolerate when it comes to politically motivated mapmaking. Here's what to know about the rules of congressional redistricting: Every decade, the Census Bureau collects population data used to divide the 435 House seats among the 50 states based on the updated head count. It's a process known as reapportionment. States that grew relative to others might gain a seat or two at the expense of those whose populations stagnated or declined. States use their own procedures to draw lines for the assigned number of districts. The smallest states receive just one representative, which means the entire state is a single congressional district. Some state constitutions require independent commissions to devise the political boundaries or to advise the legislature. When legislatures take the lead, lawmakers can risk drawing lines that end up challenged in court, usually on claims of violating the Voting Rights Act. Mapmakers can get another chance and resubmit new maps. Sometimes, judges draw the maps on their own. By the first midterm elections after the latest population count, each state is ready with its maps, but those districts do not always stick. Courts can find that the political lines are unconstitutional. There is no national impediment to a state trying to redraw districts in the middle of the decade and to do it for political reasons, such as increasing representation by the party in power. 'The laws about redistricting just say you have to redistrict after every census,' Spencer said. 'And then some state legislatures got a little clever and said, 'Well, it doesn't say we can't do it more.'' Some states have laws that would prevent midcycle redistricting or make it difficult to do so in a way that benefits one party. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to retaliate against the GOP push in Texas by drawing more favorable Democratic seats in his state. That goal, however, is complicated by a constitutional amendment — approved by state voters — that requires an independent commission to lead the process. Texas has done it before. When the Legislature failed to agree on a redistricting plan after the 2000 census, a federal court stepped in with its own map. Republican Tom DeLay of Texas, who was then the U.S. House majority leader, thought his state should have five more districts friendly to his party. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,′′ he said at the time. Statehouse Democrats protested by fleeing to Oklahoma, depriving the Legislature of enough votes to officially conduct any business. But DeLay eventually got his way, and Republicans replaced Democrats in five districts in the 2004 general election. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts should not get involved in debates over political gerrymandering, the practice of drawing districts for partisan gain. In that decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said redistricting is 'highly partisan by any measure.' But courts may demand new maps if they believe the congressional boundaries dilute the votes of a racial minority group, in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Washington state Rep. Suzan DelBene, who leads House Democrats' campaign arm, indicated at a Christian Science Monitor event that if Texas follows through on passing new maps, Democratic-led states would look at their own political lines. 'If they go down this path, absolutely folks are going to respond across the country,' DelBene said. 'We're not going to be sitting back with one hand tied behind our back while Republicans try to undermine voices of the American people.' In New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul recently joined Newsom in expressing openness to taking up mid-decade redistricting. But state laws mandating independent commissions or blunting the ability to gerrymander would come into play. Among Republican-led states, Ohio could try to further expand the 10-5 edge that the GOP holds in the House delegation; a quirk in state law requires Ohio to redraw its maps before the 2026 midterms. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he was considering early redistricting and 'working through what that would look like.' Askarinam writes for the Associated Press.
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Political ploy or bold move to save democracy? Our columnists debate Newsom redistricting threat
In a brazen move, Republicans in Texas have set out to redraw the state's congressional map — an effort to boost President Trump and the GOP in the 2026 midterm elections. Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to respond in kind, gerrymandering blue California to give Democrats a lift and offset the Lone Star lunge for power. That would mean scrapping the political lines drawn by an independent citizens commission, which voters created nearly two decades ago to take line-drawing away from the state's politicians. Our columnists Mark Z. Barabak and Anita Chabria disagree strongly, but amicably, on the wisdom and implications of Newsom's threatened move. Here they hash it out. Barabak: Gavin Newsom — or the 48th president of the United States, as he fancies himself — is perhaps second only to Donald Trump when it comes to surfing a political wave. And so it is with redistricting and retribution. It may set partisan Democratic hearts to racing — which is part of Newsom's intent — but it's a bad move for all sorts of reasons. Not least, ignoring the will of California voters, who resoundingly told the state's self-dealing politicians no mas! I understand the fight-fire-with-fire attitude that animates partisan support for the get-even talk by 48, er, Newsom. But the danger is causing even more widespread damage. Over the years, a lot of zeitgeist-y moves by the headline-hungry Newsom have come to naught. This is another that belongs on the scrap heap. Chabria: I agree that the Vegas odds are on the side of this tit-for-tat being nothing more than a partisan headline-grabber. But. There is a larger and more important question here that boils down to how seriously you believe our democracy is in jeopardy. If, Mark — as I think you are inclined to at least hope — this too shall pass and our next election will be free and fair, however it may land, then the idea of gerrymandering our congressional districts can be nothing but appalling. This is especially true in California, one of the few states in which the people have voted to ensure our electoral maps are drawn with nonpartisan fairness in mind. If, like me, however, you think we are on a knife's edge of losing our democracy to authoritarianism — or at least an oligarchy where hate is wielded for power — then gerrymandering becomes a form of peaceful resistance. Newsom recently said, 'We can act holier-than-thou. We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment' — which gives you an idea of his thinking, and frankly, mine. I'll dive into that more, but maybe that's where we start. Do you think our democracy is sound and what we're witnessing is just a period of discontent that will pass without lasting harm? Barabak: I sure hope so. I yield to no one in my disgust with Trump and concern about what he's doing. He's authoritarian. Autocratic. Arrogant. Anti-democratic. And that's not even getting past the letter 'A.' But actions like the one Newsom threatens on redistricting don't take place in a vacuum, which is important to bear in mind. Short-term tactical gains can result in long-term pain. For instance: In 2013 Democrats were so upset about Republican blockading of President Obama's judicial and executive branch nominations that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the 'nuclear option.' At Reid's behest, the Senate narrowly voted to change its rules and disallow the filibustering of presidential nominees. The result is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and a whole clown car of Trump Cabinet members. And while Democrats explicitly said the rule change would not apply to the Supreme Court, once the door was open Republicans shouldered their way through and eliminated the filibuster for those nominees as well. The result is Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and the high court's 6-3 Trump-coddling conservative super-majority. Those who fight fire with fire risk getting badly burned. If Democrats want a war over redistricting, Republicans have a lot more ways to gerrymander and potentially gain seats — in places such as Florida, Missouri and Ohio — than Democrats. Chabria: No doubt. But, and this is as low as it gets, I'll pay the price of a Hegseth, maybe even two, if it really does save democracy. Here's the reality: The only hope of a Congress that will curb Trump through the democratic process is shifting at least some power to Democrats in the 2026 election. If Texas Republicans, under pressure from Trump, manage to redraw as many as five new GOP-leaning seats — and it doesn't blow up in their faces, which it could — the move would boost the chances the House remains a Trump entourage and the prospect of authoritarianism goes from brush fire to wildfire. The truth is that gerrymandering is far more common than most realize. Kevin Johnson, an expert with the Election Reformers Network, wrote recently that 'In the 1990s, only 40% of the seats in the House of Representatives were considered a sure thing for one party or the other, now that figure is 83%.' That's because most states gerrymander. Really, the only truly competitive races take place in states such as California that have independent, nonpartisan folks drawing the election maps. So to play devil's advocate, we've already lost to gerrymandering in the U.S. and California just doesn't know it. That's a problem that could be solved if a future president and Congress wanted to do so. But it requires getting to a future president and Congress. I always put this on the record: I care neither about Republicans or Democrats. I care about democracy. If California gerrymandered, helped turn Congress into a real check against authoritarianism and left fixing gerrymandering for later, would it really be so bad? Barabak: Your crystal ball must be less hazy than mine. I'm not all convinced that even a gain of five Texas House seats would guarantee GOP control of the House. (And let me put this on the record: I think what Trump and his Texas handmaidens are doing is thoroughly reprehensible.) Since World War II, the out-party has picked up an average of more than two dozen House seats in midterm elections. Democrats need a gain of three to seize control. There's even, as you suggest, a chance Republicans' political pigginess backfires by spreading their voters too thin, creating districts that Democrats might pick up if there's a big enough blue wave. Speaking of moves backfiring, it's no sure bet Californians would approve Newsom's gerrymander effort if he put it to a vote in a special election to override the commission. Surrendering power to politicians is a pretty big ask in today's environment. And it's not as though Newsom has a deep reservoir of goodwill to draw upon; just look at his poll numbers. He went to South Carolina to, allegedly, campaign for Democratic House candidates, even though the state hasn't a single competitive contest. California has about 10 races that look to be at least somewhat competitive — yet you don't see fellow Democrats clamoring for Newsom to drop by their districts. Chabria: I don't have a crystal ball. What I do have is a deep well of foreboding, but an optimist's hope that your blue wave, power-to-the-people scenario happens. In the meantime, Newsom said Friday that redistricting 'is not a bluff,' and he is exploring multiple ways to do it. On that list is a legal gamble. Our current redistricting laws say maps have to be drawn fairly every 10 years, after the census — but doesn't specifically say we can't gerrymander in between. Newsom is basically suggesting cheating with a sunset clause: Immediate redistricting that benefits Democrats, but that would expire when the regular redistricting happens. It's drastic, and may just wind up tied up in courts indefinitely. But I am frustrated that politicians, pundits and even regular people continue to treat this administration as just politics as usual, and I appreciate that Newsom is not, even if part of it is driven by personal gain for a 2028 presidential bid. Perhaps our democracy has been on the brink before, but that makes this cliff no less dangerous. We the people need to think outside of our regular reactions to Republicans vs. Democrats or cultural wars or partisan divides or any of the far more harmless stressors that have plagued our system in the past. What I like about Newsom's jab is that it forces us to have conversations like this one, and ask ourselves how do we fight differently? Because this fight is different. Barabak: This may sound Pollyannaish, but I think there's nothing about these frightful times that can't be remedied at the ballot box. Texas may have a competitive U.S. Senate race next year. If Texans don't like the ruthlessness of GOP lawmakers and their power grab, they can send a message by electing a Democrat, helping the party overcome the odds and take control of the chamber. That would put a check on Trump, regardless of whether Republicans hang onto the House. It's in the hands of voters. If democracy is going to be protected and preserved, it's up to them. Not scheming politicians.
