I don’t see any company jumping at the rim to implement these though, especially considering the high chance that it will just be overturned next party flip. Stuff like this needs bi-partisanship and transparency otherwise it just gets revoked when the party flips again.
it’s a waste of money until it’s clear both primary parties agree with the change, the fact it had to be done in silent/under the table says everything about the volatility of this change.
Companies may very well jump at the opportunity. Make a contract with the US government, with revocation cost paid in case of cancellation or regulation/contract basis changes written into it.
Like how a German minister contracted companies to implement the PKW Maut (Autobahn car fee), which was designed in a way criticized for probably violating EU law. And EU courts later ruled it to be in violation. The companies received 243 million €. (DE Wikipedia)
I don’t see any company jumping at the rim to implement these though, especially considering the high chance that it will just be overturned next party flip. Stuff like this needs bi-partisanship and transparency otherwise it just gets revoked when the party flips again.
it’s a waste of money until it’s clear both primary parties agree with the change, the fact it had to be done in silent/under the table says everything about the volatility of this change.
Companies may very well jump at the opportunity. Make a contract with the US government, with revocation cost paid in case of cancellation or regulation/contract basis changes written into it.
Like how a German minister contracted companies to implement the PKW Maut (Autobahn car fee), which was designed in a way criticized for probably violating EU law. And EU courts later ruled it to be in violation. The companies received 243 million €. (DE Wikipedia)
They aren’t a waste of money if investors can assume that there won’t be party changes in the future.