'Goldman Sachs expects significant Chinese fiscal easing to offset tariffs'

 Goldman Sachs said it expects Chinese policymakers to accelerate fiscal easing measures significantly to offset the drag on growth from higher tariffs announced by the United States last week that were higher than expected.

Goldman said in a report on Sunday that the new tariff rates announced by U.S. President Donald Trump would lower Chinese GDP growth by at least 0.7 percentage point this year.

"Prior to the tariffs, growth was tracking above our forecasts, and we were contemplating an upward revision to our 2025 GDP expectations," the report said.

Goldman pointed to a commentary in China's state-run People's Daily on Sunday that hinted at monetary policy actions and listed measures China could take.

"Based on the evolving situation, there is ample room for adjustment in monetary policy tools such as reserve requirement ratio cuts and interest rate reductions, which can be introduced at any time," the newspaper said.

The People's Daily also pointed to a possible further expansion of fiscal deficits, special bonds, and special treasury bonds. China will take "extraordinary measures" to boost domestic consumption, accelerate implementation of established policies, and introduce a batch of reserve policies, it said.

Goldman said in a separate report, also released on Sunday, that it kept its 2025 GDP growth forecast for China at 4.5% due to better-than-expected first-quarter data and increased policy easing expectations, but trimmed its earnings growth forecast for the year to 7% from 9%.

Trump introduced an additional 34% tariff on Chinese goods as part of steep levies imposed on most U.S. trade partners, bringing the total duties on China this year to 54%. China retaliated with a series of countermeasures.

The investment bank also downgraded Taiwan to underweight in its Asian market allocations, citing high exposure to U.S. exports and market sensitivity.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/goldman-sachs-expects-further-fiscal-004855485.html

Inflation?

 

https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Dems "Openly Defending" Hiring Illegal Immigrants After Wash. State ICE Raid

 ICE raided Mount Baker Roofing in Bellingham, Washington this week as part of an “ongoing criminal investigation into the unlawful employment of aliens without legal work authorization”, according to Jason Rantz at 770KTTH. 

The agency reported arresting 37 illegal immigrants “who had fraudulently represented their immigration status and submitted fraudulent documents and/or information to seek employment.”

Rantz this week writes to point out that Democrats are simply "openly defending businesses hiring illegal immigrants". 

ICE described its investigation as targeting “worksite violations and/or the exploitation of workers”—a goal Democrats usually support, unless it involves illegal immigrants.

The Washington State Senate Members of Color Caucus (MOCC) condemned the raid, claiming it harms business. “Businesses also face significant challenges, including labor shortages, operational disruptions, and uncertainty in their ability to provide goods and services,” they stated.

Rantz writes that Washington Democrats appear more concerned about businesses allegedly hiring illegal workers than about the violations themselves. They've even funneled millions into helping illegal immigrants avoid deportation and continue working unlawfully.

Illegal workers are often exploited, but Washington Democrats seem fine with that—as long as they can use them to posture as champions of the marginalized. Even if the arrests had involved violent criminals, their outrage would still be directed at ICE, not the lawbreakers.

Roofing isn't one of those jobs Democrats claim Americans refuse to do, so why defend illegal employment? Is it just about securing cheap labor while locals face a 4.9% unemployment rate in Bellingham?

If you're questioning their priorities, the MOCC's statement says it all—and not in a flattering way, Rantz concludes.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/dems-openly-defending-hiring-illegal-immigrants-after-wash-ice-raid

NY plotting another tax hike to keep feeding health care special interests

 In a tale all too typical of Albany, Gov. Kathy Hochul a year or so ago was pushing to rein in out-of-control state Medicaid spending on home health aides, only to since switch sides with an eye on her re-election run next year.

Now Medicaid outlays are set to soar at least 17% in the next budget, while the aide ranks are soaring and indeed are by far the single largest job category in all New York.

A new Empire Center analysis of US Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that the Empire State home-health-aide workforce grew by 57,000 from 2023 to May 2024, for a total of 623,000.

That’s far above the per-capita level of other states and outnumbers New York’s No. 2. job category, retail sales, by nearly three to one.

This year, Hochul’s initial budget proposed a 17% rise in Medicaid spending (some of it buried in other categories); the Legislature will almost certainly add to that somehow, since the health-care-worker unions — above all, 1199 — are a ginormous lobbying power.

This, when state Medicaid spending has seen double-digit growth and a surge in enrollment despite a falling poverty rate.

And when New York’s overall health-care workforce grew from 1.15 million workers pre-pandemic (2019) to 1.40 million in 2024.

Hochul had hoped to rein in the home-aide ranks by centralizing hiring in her Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program, but that’s since morphed into a mass unionization drive after an administrative maneuver that opened the door for 1199 to sign up the aides as members (even as the firm tapped to run the centralized hiring has itself been a subject of controversy).

Meanwhile, Hochul’s team also allowed New Yorkers without employer-sponsored health benefits to qualify for home-care-aide subsidies under the state Essential Plan, another big boost for 1199.

o be fair, the unions aren’t the only special interest to push ever-higher health spending: The state’s hospitals are a lobbying monster in their own right, and a host of nonprofit insurers and other intermediaries regularly spin off huge payouts to the private interests that control them in various state-approved “restructurings.”

Of course, since Medicaid is a joint state-federal program, New York’s vast outlays (and those of other ill-governed states like California and Illinois) will soon face some tough love from Washington; cuts in payments to the Empire State will hit the $10 billion range — not that anyone now negotiating the new state budget cares to plan on it.

Hochul and all the other Dems who rely on the political support that uncontrolled health spending buys will scream about Republicans’ “savagery” when the time comes, and most likely “temporarily” hike a host of New York taxes to balance the books.

Voters, consider yourselves on notice.

https://nypost.com/2025/04/06/opinion/new-york-is-plotting-another-tax-hike-to-keep-feeding-health-care-special-interests/

Exposure to antibiotics as a newborn can impair immune response to vaccines

 Immunization programs save millions of lives every year by protecting against preventable diseases. The immune response to vaccines, however, varies significantly between individuals, and the results can be suboptimal in populations at a higher risk of developing infectious diseases. Growing evidence suggests that differences in gut microbiota could be a key factor driving these variations.

A recent Australian study published in Nature found that babies treated with antibiotics within the first few weeks of their life showed weaker immune response to vaccines due to reduced levels of Bifidobacterium—a bacterial species that lives in the human gastrointestinal tract. Replenishing Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiome using probiotic supplements such as Infloran showed promising results in restoring the immune response.

The researchers followed 191 healthy, vaginally born infants from their birth to 15 months: 86% of the participants received the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, and, by six weeks of age, began their routine childhood vaccinations, according to the Australian National Immunization Program schedule.

The infants were grouped based on their exposure to antibiotics: no direct or maternal exposure, exposed to maternal antibiotics and received at least 48 hours of antibiotic treatment during neonatal care.

To monitor changes in gut microbiome and vaccine-related immune responses over time, stool samples were collected at seven days and six weeks of age, while blood samples were taken at multiple points between six weeks and 15 months. To prevent bias during sample collection and analysis, the researchers collecting the samples weren't aware of which infants belonged to which exposure group.

Vaccine-specific antibody responses are frequently impaired in infants directly exposed to antibiotics in the neonatal period. Credit: Nature (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-08796-4

The investigation revealed that children who were directly exposed to neonatal antibiotics, not the ones exposed to maternal antibiotics, produced much lower levels of antibodies against multiple polysaccharides included in the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or PCV13 vaccine.

Streptococcus pneumoniae, a bacteria known for causing serious diseases like pneumonia, blood infections, and meningitis, is surrounded by a capsule made up of polysaccharides, or sugar molecules that help the bacteria evade attacks by the body's immune system.

The PCV13 vaccine makes it easier for the immune system to attack S. pneumoniae and produce antibodies by linking the polysaccharide capsule layer to proteins. Exposure to neonatal antibiotics reduces antibody production against such polysaccharides, weakening the immune response.

Experiments on germ-free mice revealed that the lower immune response was linked to a reduced abundance of Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiome. However, giving the mice a mix of Bifidobacterium species or Infloran, a commonly used infant probiotic, helped reverse the negative effects of antibiotics and regain the immune response to PCV13.

The researchers propose that restoring a healthy Bifidobacterium-rich microbiota in antibiotic-exposed infants before their vaccination might enhance the antibody responses to vaccination, leading to better protection against infectious diseases.

More information: David Lynn, Bifidobacteria support optimal infant vaccine responses, Nature (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-08796-4. www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08796-4

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-04-exposure-antibiotics-newborn-impair-immune.html

Effects of ADHD medications on the heart

 A new study led by the University of Southampton has found that medications for ADHD have overall small effects on blood pressure and heart rate after weeks or a few months of use.

There have been concerns about the side effects of ADHD medications but the new findings, coupled with other studies, suggest that the benefits of taking these medications outweigh the risks, while highlighting the need for careful monitoring.

The study, published in The Lancet Psychiatry, conducted the largest and most comprehensive analysis of the cardiovascular effects of ADHD medications based on the results of randomized controlled trials—the most rigorous type of clinical study to assess medication effects.

Professor Samuele Cortese, senior lead author of the study from the University of Southampton said, "When it comes to taking any medication, risks and benefits should always be assessed together. We found an overall small increase in blood pressure and pulse for the majority of children taking ADHD medications.

"Other studies show clear benefits in terms of reductions in mortality risk and improvement in academic functions, as well as a small increased risk of hypertension, but not other cardiovascular diseases. Overall, the risk-benefit ratio is reassuring for people taking ADHD medications."

It is estimated that attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects around 4% of children in the UK. Of these, around 45% are treated with medication.

The international team of investigators analyzed data from 102 randomized controlled trials, including a total of 22,702 participants with ADHD. They used an advanced statistical approach—network meta-analysis—that allowed them to compare the effects of several medications, even when the medications were not directly compared in the trials included in the analysis.

They found that all ADHD medications were generally associated with overall small effects on blood pressure, heart rate, and ECG parameters. With the exception of guanfacine (which leads to decreased blood pressure and heart rate), other medications led to increases in the values of these parameters.

No significant differences were found between stimulants (including methylphenidate and amphetamine) and non-stimulants (atomoxetine and viloxazine) with regard to their effects on blood pressure and heart rate.

"Our findings should inform future clinical guidelines, stressing the need to systematically monitor blood pressure and heart rate, both for stimulants and non-stimulants. This should be particularly relevant for practitioners who might assume that only stimulants have a negative effect on the cardiovascular system," said first author, Dr. Luis Farhat (University of São Paulo, Brazil).

The researchers say that those with existing heart conditions should discuss the side effects of ADHD medications with a specialist cardiologist before starting treatment.

Co-senior author, Professor Alexis Revet (University of Toulouse, France) added, "Our findings, based on randomized controlled trials that tend to be of short duration due to ethical issues, should be complemented by results from real-world, longer-term studies."

The research team will now look to see if some groups might be more vulnerable to cardiovascular side effects than others.

NIHR Research Professor Cortese concluded, "While our findings are informative at the group level, that is, on average, we cannot exclude that a subgroup of individuals may have a higher risk of more substantial cardiovascular alterations.

"While it is currently not possible to identify those individuals at higher risk, efforts based on precision medicine approaches will hopefully provide important insights in the future."

More information: Comparative cardiovascular safety of medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis, The Lancet Psychiatry (2025). DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(25)00062-8

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-04-effects-adhd-medications-heart.html

Oh, That Influence Peddling: Times Finds Evidence Suggesting Hunter Acted As Foreign Agent

 by Jonathan Turley,

For years, some of us have written about the Biden family’s multimillion-dollar influence-peddling operation and the Justice Department’s refusal to charge Hunter Biden with being an unregistered foreign agent. Now, years later, the New York Times has found evidence suggesting that Hunter Biden was acting as a foreign agent as early as the Obama Administration, when his Dad was Vice President.

Last August, the New York Times ran a story about Hunter seeking help from the government for his client Burisma.  Ken Vogel just ran a follow-up story with damaging new details:

Hunter Biden sought assistance from the U.S. government for a potentially lucrative energy project in Italy while his father was vice president, according to newly released records and interviews.

The records, which the Biden administration had withheld for years, indicate that Hunter Biden wrote at least one letter to the U.S. ambassador to Italy in 2016 seeking assistance for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, where he was a board member…

The State Department did not release the actual text of the letter.

That is precisely what many of us have been writing about in asking why Hunter was not charged with being an unregistered foreign agent as was the case under cases from Paul Manafort to Bob Menendez.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) covers anyone acting as “agent of a foreign principal,” including but not limited to (1) attempting to influence federal officials or the public on domestic or foreign policy or the political or public interests in favor of a foreign country; (2) collecting or disbursing money and or other things of value within the United States; or (3) representing the interests of the foreign principal before U.S. Government officials or agencies.

It is sweeping. So is the definition of what a “foreign principal” encompasses, including “a foreign government, a foreign political party, any person outside the United States (except U.S. citizens who are domiciled within the United States), and any entity organized under the laws of a foreign country or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”

As I previously wrote,  special counsel Robert Mueller seemed to charge by the gross under the act. He hit a line of Trump associates with such allegations from Manafort to Michael Flynn to George Papadopoulos to Rick Gates. The Justice Department used FARA to conduct searches on the homes and files of former Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani, Republican counsel Victoria Toensing and others.

However, the Justice Department and Special Counsel David Weiss seemed to tie themselves into knots to avoid tripping the wire on FARA even as it discussed Hunter’s work for foreign clients.

The government also resisted FOIA requests from the Times and other media. Vogel wrote:

The request was initially filed under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, in June 2021. After nearly eight months, the State Department had not released any records, and The Times sued. About 18 months later, the department moved to close the case after releasing thousands of pages of records — none of which shed light on Hunter Biden’s outreach to the U.S. government.

The Times challenged the thoroughness of the search, noting that the department had failed to produce responsive records contained in a cache of files connected to a laptop that Mr. Biden had abandoned at a Delaware repair shop. The department resumed the search and periodic productions, but had produced few documents related to Mr. Biden until the week after his father ended his re-election campaign and endorsed Vice President Harris for the Democratic nomination.

Now we have a copy of a key letter from Hunter that gives us an insight into the evidence buried for years:

The State Department last week released a letter that Hunter Biden wrote while his father was serving as vice president in which he sought assistance from the U.S. government for the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

In the previously unpublished June 2016 letter on Burisma letterhead to the U.S. ambassador to Italy, Mr. Biden requested “support and guidance” in arranging a meeting with an Italian official to resolve regulatory hurdles to geothermal energy projects Burisma was pursuing in the Tuscany region…

The letter requested help arranging a meeting between Burisma officials and Enrico Rossi, the president of the Tuscany regional government at the time, “to introduce geothermal projects led by Burisma Group, to highlight their social and economic benefits for local communities and develop a common action plan that would lead to further development of the Tuscany Region.”

How could any Justice Department official, let alone a Special Counsel, read that letter and not see the glaring disconnect between the handling of the case involving Joe Biden’s son and others like Manafort?

The letter references a trip on which Hunter, as was his pattern, used official travel with his father to make these business connections. The letter mentions meeting a key ambassador on Air Force Two as he seeks assistance for his client.

The ambassador then sent a follow-up letter saying he knew the president of Tuscany and identified a Commerce Department official working at the US embassy to “see where our interests may overlap.”

It was another example of alleged influence peddling through his father and work for a foreign client in lobbying the government.

During this period, the Justice Department seemed to be on a hair-trigger for FARA charges. Yet, when it came to Hunter Biden, the entire department seemed composed of legal Sgt. Schultzs.

Many in the media attacked those of us who have been writing about this corruption stretching back to the Obama Administration. Many simply insisted that there was no evidence while taking no steps to find out. While the media was unrelenting in investigating Trump allegations of Russian collusion and business improprieties, it took a largely passive stance in pursuing this story.

Even the New York Times, which can be credited with pursuing this FOIA information, did comparably little with the ample evidence of corruption by the Bidens in securing millions through influence peddling.

What remains is a corruption scandal involving not only what the Bidens did but also what the Justice Department did not do over this extended period. It appears to heed the advice not of whistleblowers but politicians like former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) that “everybody needs to back off” the influence-peddling story.

Of course, Joe Biden ultimately broke his repeated promise not to pardon his son. What was most notable, however, was that he not only pardoned him for any crimes from human trafficking to tax evasion, but did so for a period running from Jan. 1, 2014 to Dec. 1, 2024.

This letter explains why such a sweeping, extended pardon was needed. Yet, in the end, the greatest indictment from this scandal was of the Justice Department itself.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/oh-influence-peddling-times-finds-evidence-suggesting-hunter-acted-foreign-agent