Podcasts about comptroller general

Welcome to Saturday Morning Coffee for June 20, 2026!It's busy week in SC Politics and there's much to talk about this week on Saturday Morning coffee.  Reese and Tim discuss the three-day work week, "peace in our time?" in Iran, how Tulsi Gabbard is a national hero and the significance of the "document dump" she left us as outgoing Director of National Intelligence.  Prayers for her and her husband.  We're also joined on the show by Mike Burkhold, Republican candidate for Comptroller General in South Carolina, for a fascinating discussion of how Mike plans to combat government waste and fraud once elected as Comptroller General.You can check out Mike Burkhold on substack here:https://michaelbburkhold.substack.comor check out his website here:Burkhold.net  Be blessed, have a great week and join us again next week for more Saturday Morning Coffee!And while you're at it (having a great week), please reach out to our sponsors and thank them for sponsoring Saturday Morning Coffee!   Conway Ford:        (843) 587-6371   Boyd Law Group:  (843) 315-3525Thank you!  Have a great week and be blessed!Reese, Tim and the Saturday Morning Coffee TeamProverbs 3:5-6

Imagine going into business with a partner who tells you upfront: at the end of every year, I'll decide how much of the profits I keep. You'd never agree to that. But Ira Work says millions of Americans already did the day they opened a traditional IRA.That's one of several hard truths Ira Work, a 42-year financial industry veteran, addresses head-on in his new book and in this conversation. After 17 years working for firms like Smith Barney and Shearson Lehman Brothers, Ira walked away from the traditional brokerage model — not because he failed, but because he saw how it was failing clients.In this episode, Ira breaks down four persistent myths that quietly erode investor wealth, explains why tax-deferred retirement accounts may carry more risk than most people realize, and makes the case for financial coaching over traditional advising. Listeners will walk away with a clearer picture of what questions to ask, what costs to watch for, and what it actually means to have a financial plan built around their life and not just their portfolio.About Ira WorkIra Work is an Investor Coach and founder at First Financial Coaching, Inc., with over 42 years of experience in the financial industry. He holds multiple advanced designations including ChFC, RFC, AIF, AAMS, CASL, and CRPS. After spending his first 17 years at major wirehouses, Ira transitioned to independent financial coaching focused on investor education, behavioral science, and evidence-based investing. He is the author of The Investor's Coach: How You Can Rise Above Wall Street's Myths and Build Real Wealth.What We CoverWhy stock picking and market timing feel logical in the moment but fail investors over timeThe real reason 10-year fund track records are nearly meaningless for picking investmentsHow hidden trading costs inflate what investors actually pay beyond the stated expense ratioThe IRA tax trap: why deferring taxes today could mean paying far more tomorrow if rates riseThe one question Ira asks every new client that most advisors never think to raiseThe difference between a financial advisor and a financial coach, and why one asks about your life while the other asks about your moneyResources MentionedThe Investor's Coach by Ira Work — available on AmazonCome Back America by David Walker (U.S. Comptroller General) — referenced in the tax trap discussionNavigating the Fog of Investing — documentary film featuring Morningstar's CEO on fund ratingsConnect with Ira WorkWebsite: irawork.com / firstfinancialcoach.comEmail: irawork@firstfinancialcoach.comSupport the show

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Today's podcast is titled “Will Federal Government Debt Destroy the Dollar?” First recorded in 2024, host Dennis McCuistion is joined by David Walker, former U.S. Comptroller General and head of the Government Accountability Office, for a discussion about America’s mounting fiscal crisis as federal debt reaches $34 trillion and threatens the nation’s economic future. Walker emphasizes that the real concern isn’t just the debt amount but the debt-to-GDP ratio, which stands at 120% and is projected to reach 192% within 30 years. Listen now, and don't forget to subscribe to get updates for the Free To Choose Media Podcast.

04-28-2026 David Walker Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://usabusinessradio.com/three-things-this-former-comptroller-general-of-the-us-is-watching/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

Acting Comptroller General of the United States and Head of the US Government Accountability Office Orice Williams Brown joined us in conversation at the Academy offices last month to talk about a hugely important document to everyone in the federal government: the GAO High Risk List.For more than three decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office's High-Risk List has identified programs vulnerable to waste, mismanagement, and operational weakness. But beyond oversight, the High-Risk List has become a powerful driver of modernization, reform, and performance improvement across government.Brown joined Academy Fellow Kimberly Walton of the Standing Panel on the Public Service to talk about how agencies and priorities get on the High Risk List, why some welcome it, and what it takes to be moved off!Stick around to learn what the future might hold for GAO and more.Management Matters is a presentation of the National Academy of Public Administration produced by Lizzie Alwan and Matt Hampton and edited by Matt Hampton. Support the Podcast Today at: donate@napawash.org or 202-347-3190Episode music: Hope by Mixaund | https://mixaund.bandcamp.comMusic promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.comFollow us on YouTube for clips and more: @NAPAWASH_YT

 It’s true.  The headline in Fortune on-line screamed “The Treasury Just Declared the U.S. insolvent. The media missed it.” Well maybe the media missed it, but Congress and the President also have been asleep at the nation’s wheel on this issue for a very long time. The Treasury’s own consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2025, released just a few weeks ago, show $6.06 trillion in total assets against $47.78 trillion in total liabilities as of September 30, 2025.  And, folks, that’s just the public debt which you can see above the waterline.  When you add about the implied obligations to citizens going forward, like Social Security and Medicare obligations, the roughly $41 trillion in debt rises to around $100 trillion.  It is mind blowing.  So, what can the federal government do?  Simply put, it could curb spending, raise taxes or hope that economic growth can grow our way out of this mess.  Or you can look away, keep printing money and continue borrowing, until the interest payments on the debt wreck the economy or borrowers scatter to the hills.  We’re on the verge.  Our guest today, the Honorable David Walker is the former Comptroller General of the United States and CEO of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).  His words are clear and provocative as to the hole we have dug for ourselves. He thinks we need a good old talking to, as the citizenry, about our problem.  Will anyone listen?  You can begin today with this podcast.

David McKnight addresses an issue he sees more and more in his conversations with retirees and pre-retirees: the so-called Roth over-conversion trap.  The problem stems from converting too much money with the result of shortening the lifespan of your retirement savings. David believes that the reason why many Americans are racing to convert everything they have in their IRAs and 401(k)s has to do with the fear about where the country is headed financially. Penn Wharton has warned repeatedly that, if we don't right our fiscal ship by 2043, no combination of raising taxes or reducing spending will arrest the financial collapse of the country. According to former Comptroller General of the U.S. Government David M. Walker tax rates could have to double to pay for the country's massive $200 trillion unfunded obligations for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The debt-to-GPD ratio, which is one of the simplest measures of a nation's financial health, keeps climbing higher: By 2035 it will be at 150%, while by 2043 at nearly 200%. David warns that what most people don't realize is that in their zeal to avoid higher taxes, they may actually be marching straight into an over-conversion trap – which is just as dangerous as not converting enough money into tax-free. If you end up not having taxable income left to be offset by your standard deduction, you'll end up having a tax shield with nothing to protect. In other words, your deduction will sit idle, completely unused, and will go to waste every single year. That's why David suggests leaving a small, strategic amount of money in your tax-deferred bucket. The idea is to want enough in your IRA or 401(k) so that when required minimum distributions begin at age 73 or 75, those distributions are offset by your standard deduction.  David touches upon what he refers to as the "Holy Grail of retirement planning:" You got a deduction on the way in, you grew your money tax-deferred and then you took the money out 100% tax-free by offsetting it with a standard deduction. The million dollar question is how much should you leave in your IRA or 401(k) to make everything work? That's roughly $400,000 for married couples, around $200,000 for single retirees. If you aren't strategic with your retirement planning approach, you may have up to 85% of your Social Security taxable at your highest marginal tax bracket. David sees ensuring your money lasts as long as you do as the #1 retirement planning goal.  Remember: you shouldn't reflexively convert 100% of your tax-deferred retirement savings to tax-free. You want to be aware of how the standard deduction in retirement works and execute your Roth conversion strategy accordingly.     Mentioned in this episode: David's new book, available now for pre-order: The Secret Order of Millionaires David's national bestselling book: The Guru Gap: How America's Financial Gurus Are Leading You Astray, and How to Get Back on Track Tax-Free Income for Life: A Step-by-Step Plan for a Secure Retirement by David McKnight DavidMcKnight.com DavidMcKnightBooks.com PowerOfZero.com (free video series) @mcknightandco on Twitter  @davidcmcknight on Instagram David McKnight on YouTube Get David's Tax-free Tool Kit at taxfreetoolkit.com Penn Wharton David M. Walker

03-24-2026 David Walker Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://usabusinessradio.com/exclusive-former-comptroller-general-blows-alarm-on-us-financial-statement/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

00:00 Well, ladies and gentlemen, it happened today at noon, the call to the post. 00:09 That's right. It is now officially, I know it seems like it's been, but it's now officially political season here in South Carolina. Today at noon was the opening um of the filing season here in South Carolina. These were for partisan candidate filing periods that opened at noon today. It will close at noon on Monday, March the 30th. 00:37 All partisan candidates must file during this period in order to appear on the ballot. Now this can happen during regular business hours at all appropriate filing locations throughout the filing period. There are filing fees included on this and some of them are pretty steep. Now if you're running for South Carolina House of Representatives, that's only a $208 filing fee. If you're running for 01:07 Solicitor, that's gonna cost you $8,877. If you're running for the US House, $3,000, yeah, you heard me, $8,000 to run for a solicitor, right? I know, JJ's like, what? US House of Representatives, $3,480. You wanna run for the Senate? That's gonna cost you 10,440 smackeroonies. Basically, let's say, lieutenant governor, 4,243. 01:37 Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General, um Comptroller General, Superintendent, those are $3,680. And now, let's say you want to run, but you just don't have the bucks. um You can actually file as a pauper. Yeah, they have a uh pauper clause where you can file as a pauper. 02:07 So, and the reason I found it was funny, we always had this guy that ran for mayor of Augusta, my hometown, and every election, every four years, he filed as a pauper to run. um his big campaign promise was that he was going to build a monorail from Augusta to Atlanta. A monorail. 02:37 all the way to it. I don't think you ever got much of a vote. But anyway, filing season is open. That means if you have been thinking about running for office here in South Carolina, maybe Greenville, Spartanburg County, those are different filing fees. You have to file those with the county. These are all the state filing fees. um Then m 03:01 And now is the time to make the decision because after what we've seen in the state house over the past year, over the past couple of years, over the past few decades, we have seen exactly how those people operate. And it is becoming more more abundantly clear. 03:23 that those folks really do not have our best interests at heart. mean, this is a job that pays a little over $10,000 a year plus per diem, um and they will fight tooth and nail to keep that job? So they're not in it for that salary, that's not the big thing, and they're not really in it for you, they're in it for all of the perks that come along with it. At least that's how it seems to me. I mean, why else would you fight? 03:54 like cats in a blanket. 03:57 for that job. There's gotta be something else involved. And we know with all the lawyer legislators out there, exactly what all of that does. It's good way to drum up business, especially when our state legislature is the one that appoints our judges. So, if you've been thinking about it, now's the time to do it. Go ahead and file, start that campaign because you have got less than three months now. 04:26 primaries are June the 9th and we have got to make some big changes in Columbia. We have made a little headway the last the last few special elections we had Republicans good conservative Republicans. 04:44 got in and maybe we can continue that trend. Maybe we can have a state. 04:53 that makes the people in Florida jealous instead of it being the other way around. I'm tired of looking at Florida going, man, I wish we could do that. I wish we could do that. 05:06 So we also might have another person. Now we know that Pamela Aved, Ralph Norman, Alan Wilson, Nancy Mace, and Josh Kimbrell are running for the governor's spot here in South Carolina. There may be a sixth candidate entering into that mix. Apparently we're goin ...

For nearly two decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office was led by Gene L. Dodaro, an auditor who came up-through the ranks of the agency and was sworn in as 8th Comptroller General of the United States in 2010. During his final days at…

Today on the Federal Drive with Terry GertonMajor shifts across climate, labor, immigration and other key policy areas made 2025 a year of rapid regulatory changeThe search for the next Comptroller General is turning into a mystery — no one knows when the process will even begin It's starting to feel like Census Groundhog Day ... the same warning signs from 2020 are showing up again for 2030See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

With Gene Dodaro's 15‑year term closed out and Orice Williams Brown serving in an acting capacity, Congress and the administration now face a high‑stakes selection governed by one of the most bipartisan appointment processes in government. The next leader must balance independence, expertise and credibility to keep GAO's work above politics. POGO's Janice Luong joins us to break down what comes next.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How should intellectual property law deal with the growth of AI? https://uklawweekly.substack.com/subscribe Music from bensound.com

This week on Facing the Future, former Comptroller General of the United States and CEO of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) David Walker discussed his efforts to sound the alarm on the dangers of rising debt and unsustainable government commitments.

This week on Facing the Future, former Comptroller General of the United States and CEO of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) David Walker discussed his efforts to sound the alarm on the dangers of rising debt and unsustainable government commitments.

Gene Dodaro joins host Michael J. Keegan on The Business of Government Hour for a conversation reflecting on his public service journey, the accomplishments that shaped GAO's modern identity, and the challenges that lie ahead for the US federal government. He offers insights on the persistent vulnerabilities still facing government, the importance of public sector […]

Gene joins host Michael J. Keegan on The Business of Government Hour for final conversation on his public service journey, the accomplishments that shaped GAO's modern identity, and the challenges that lie ahead for the US federal government. He offers insights on the persistent vulnerabilities still facing government, the importance of public sector leadership, and advice he has for his successor and the next generation of public servants.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this special Christmas pop-up episode of the GovNavigators Show, Robert and Adam close out a truly wild year in government with reflections, gratitude, and a well-earned holiday sendoff. We raise a glass to the remarkable career of Gene Dodaro, who is retiring after more than five decades of public service, including 15 years as Comptroller General of the United States. Additionally, we've got an update on all the year-end developments affecting the federal workforce, including holiday leave, pay adjustments, military compensation decisions, and the ever-present tension between appropriations law and executive branch flexibility.We wish you all a happy holidays, and we'll see you in 2026- Mele Kalikimaka!Show Notes:GAO: Comptroller General Gene Dodaro's final testimonyDodaro's "exit interview" with Government ExecutiveNDAA: Summary

12-02-2025 David Walker Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://thedailyblaze.com/former-comptroller-general-of-the-us-previews-his-congressional-testimony/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

From the White House plan to extend healthcare subsidies to the search for a new Comptroller General as Gene Dodaro retires, December brings high-stakes debates on Capitol Hill. Mitchell Miller of WTOP breaks down what's ahead and what shifting GOP dynamics mean for policy and legislation.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

11-12-2025 David Walker Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://usabusinessradio.com/former-comptroller-general-on-how-to-end-government-shutdowns/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

09-03-2025 David Walker Learn more about the interview and get additional links here: https://thedailyblaze.com/former-comptroller-general-of-us-says-criteria-met-for-an-article-v-convention/ Subscribe to the best of our content here: https://priceofbusiness.substack.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywgbHv7dpiBG2Qswr_ceEQ

To connect with Ashley McPherson click ⁠HERE⁠.To connect with Dave Walker click ⁠HERE⁠.To order America in 2040: Still a Superpower click ⁠HERE⁠.On this episode, Ashley McPherson sits down with David M. Walker — former U.S. Comptroller General and author of America in 2040: Still a Superpower. Together, they explore how global instability, supply chain risk, and corporate decision-making are reshaping the future of American business — with direct implications for the fashion industry.Dave shares insight on how brands can adapt their sourcing, protect against geopolitical disruptions, and compete through creativity and innovation while navigating global cost pressures. He also unpacks the difference between true leadership and “laggardship,” and why foresight, ethics, and stewardship are critical for brands that want to remain competitive.This episode is a clear-eyed look at what it takes to build resilience, scale with discipline, and create business longevity in a rapidly shifting economy.A special thank you to JT Foxx for making this interview possible. To connect with him, click ⁠HERE⁠.

This week on Taking Stock Susan Hayes Culleton talks to David M Walker, a former Comptroller General of the United States, about the current state of American economics. Susan also looks at the economics of ‘food labelling'. Plus, Jamie Smyth of the Financial Times talks about Big Oil's possible pivot back to fossil fuels.

While Congress, the President, and Elon Musk trade insults and accusations, we're joined by Former Comptroller General and author David Walker, and Brett Loper, Executive Vice President of Policy at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to look at the enormous challenges of the current budget reconciliation process.Political leaders are strongly divided over the long-term implications of H.R. 1 “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act.”  Tax cuts, changes to Medicaid and health care coverage, and the impact on our national debt are some of the most contentious issues. We dive into critical fiscal challenges, break down the issues with what many experts call an unsustainable fiscal path, the role of Congress in solving (or worsening) the problem, and the importance of public awareness. Support the Podcast Today at:donate@napawash.org or 202-347-3190Episode music: Hope by Mixaund | https://mixaund.bandcamp.comMusic promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.comFollow us on YouTube for clips and more: @NAPAWASH_YT

Government efficiency is THE topic of conversation since the start of President Trump's second term. But does the government already have the tools to prevent waste, fraud and abuse? Who's conducting oversight already, and how?We're joined by U.S. Comptroller General Gene Dodaro and Inspector General of the Department of Justice Michael Horowitz to talk about how the government already has a substantial efficiency toolkit that predates the Department of Government Efficiency.

Federal budgets, spending and appropriations the top parlor topics these days. You could almost forget that runaway entitlement and debt service spending are gaining momentum. Like a python constricting the life out of the republic. For a measured account of how Congress might proceed, I spoke with Comptroller General Gene Dodaro. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Federal budgets, spending and appropriations the top parlor topics these days. You could almost forget that runaway entitlement and debt service spending are gaining momentum. Like a python constricting the life out of the republic. For a measured account of how Congress might proceed, I spoke with Comptroller General Gene Dodaro. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this weekend's episode, three segments from this past week's Washington Journal. First, Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman discusses his book, "The Folly of Realism: How the West Deceived Itself About Russia and Betrayed Ukraine." Then, Jack Brewer, former NFL player and chair of the Jack Brewer Foundation, discusses issues impacting Black men and boys in the U.S. Finally, U.S. Comptroller General and head of the Government Accountability Office, Gene Dodaro (doh-DAR-oh) discusses the GAO's latest report on federal programs deemed at high risk for mismanagement, fraud and waste. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Few events raise the hackles of believers in good government more than the biannual list of high-risk federal programs. Compiled by the Government Accountability Office, it details where the government is bleeding the most money and where it's in danger of operational failure. For his perspective on the high risk list, I spoke at length with GAO's chief, Comptroller General Gene Dodaro. We started with how many of these reports he's overseen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Few events raise the hackles of believers in good government more than the biannual list of high-risk federal programs. Compiled by the Government Accountability Office, it details where the government is bleeding the most money and where it's in danger of operational failure. For his perspective on the high risk list, I spoke at length with GAO's chief, Comptroller General Gene Dodaro. We started with how many of these reports he's overseen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker: Dr Stuart Baran is a barrister at specialist intellectual property chambers Three New Square IPAbstract: The UK Supreme Court has now given its long (and long-awaited) judgment in SkyKick v. Sky. It concerns the appropriate specification of goods and services as part of a trade mark application. In particular, the UKSC was asked to consider the circumstances in which a party applying for a specification broader than its intended commercial activities can be found to have applied in bad faith. The UKSC reversed the Court of Appeal on the approach in law, finding that Sky's trade mark registrations had been sought partly in bad faith, and should be partially invalidated. The Court found infringement of the remaining specification by one of SkyKick's products, but upheld the Court of Appeal's finding that there was no infringement by the other. It also found that it enjoyed a continuing jurisdiction to grant EU-wide relief given that these proceedings started before Brexit. Here I will focus on the part of the judgment about invalidity for bad faith. I will introduce what the Court has decided and its reasons, and then look at three questions: (i) to what extent does this judgment advance the law of invalidity for applying in bad faith?; (ii) is there now a difference between the extent of goods/services for which you can register your mark, and those for which you can enforce it?; and (iii) is this judgment likely to change applicants' approach to drafting their specifications?Biography: Dr Stuart Baran is a barrister at specialist intellectual property chambers Three New Square IP. After a degree in chemistry and doctorate in chemical physics, each at Oxford, he was called to the Bar in 2011 and has practised from Three New Square ever since, in all areas of IP but with particular emphases on trade marks and patents. Stuart was lucky to chair the Oxford International IP Moot for several years, starting during his DPhil. As a barrister, Stuart has appeared unled in every IP forum, from the UKIPO and European Patent Office to the EU General Court and Court of Justice as well as the UK High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. He has been involved in a number of seminal cases across the IP spectrum, including Actavis v. Lilly, Newron v. Comptroller-General, Sky v. SkyKick, and Thaler v. Comptroller-General. Alongside his private practice, Stuart is Standing Counsel to the Comptroller-General which means he represents and advises the UKIPO and government departments on intellectual property issues. He was awarded Legal 500 Junior of the Year for IP in 2018; Managing IP Junior of the Year in 2021 and 2024; and was profiled as a JUVE Patent “One to Watch” in 2023. Outside of work he is a keen orchestral violinist, cook and Italophile.For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars

David provides a thoughtful analysis of the US economy and the US National Debt which now exceeds $36 TRILLION! He is very impressive. Using his extensive experience as a CPA, David served as the seventh Comptroller General of the United States and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) for almost ten years (1998-2008). He served under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. David also appeared in the Psychology of Retirement Movie Premiere Hosted by the Blue Heron Capital Team. This is a must listen podcast!

Will the United States remain a Superpower in 2040? What are the most significant challenges facing the U.S.? What key reforms are necessary to secure a better future for this country? Join host Michael Keegan as he explores these questions and more with Dave Walker, former Comptroller General of the US and author of America […]

Will the United States remain a Superpower in 2040? What are the most significant challenges facing the U.S.? What key reforms are necessary to secure a better future for this country? Join host Michael Keegan as he explores these questions and more with Dave Walker, former Comptroller General of the US and author of America in 2040: Still a Superpower? A Pathway to Success. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Will the United States remain a Superpower in 2040? What are the most significant challenges facing the U.S.? What key reforms are necessary to secure a better future for this country? Join host Michael Keegan as he explores these questions and more with Dave Walker, former Comptroller General of the US and author of America in 2040: Still a Superpower? A Pathway to Success. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of The Roth Guy, we're excited to welcome a very special guest, former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. With decades of experience serving under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Walker is here to share his expert insights on America's fiscal health. From the staggering national debt to the hidden tax of inflation, Walker breaks down complex economic issues in a way that's easy to understand and paints a sobering picture of what the future could look like if current trends continue. He warns that without significant changes, the US could face slower economic growth, increased taxation, and even the potential loss of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency. What can we do in light of this outlook? Join us for part 2, where we'll explore actionable steps you can take to prepare for whatever lies ahead.   Here's some of what we discuss in this episode: 0:00 – Intro 2:38 – Current fiscal condition of the US 8:49 – The impact of fiscal imbalance on Americans 14:53 – Future financial challenges + stewardship   More about David: https://dbb.defense.gov/Board-Members/Board-Members-Bio-view/Article/3160065/ David's Books: America in 2024: Still A Superpower? A Pathway to Success https://www.amazon.com/America-2040-Superpower-Pathway-Success/dp/1665500824 Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility https://www.amazon.com/Comeback-America-Turning-Restoring-Responsibility/dp/0812980727 David on X https://x.com/davidmwalker7 The Tax Bomb https://thetaxbomb.com/   Connect: Website: https://centrusfs.com/podcast/   Call: 800-779-4592 Schedule your complimentary review with Jude: https://calendly.com/centruscalendar-/30min Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOyRZhgLenTC49qNZH9mEuQ/

We're thrilled to be back with former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker for today's show. With decades of experience serving under both Republican and Democratic administrations, Walker is here to share his expert insights on America's fiscal health. Last episode, we focused on the U.S. national debt, fiscal responsibility, and the challenges posed by excessive government spending. Today, we're covering some strategies that you can take to help protect yourself from potential economic challenges. Listen in as we talk about the importance of personal financial responsibility, including being debt-free, diversifying income streams, and planning for the long-term. We also discuss the critical role of leadership in addressing the national debt crisis.   Here's some of what we discuss in this episode: 0:00 – Intro 0:41 – What David learned on his bus tour 2:28 – What we can do + what David wants to see from government leadership 7:28 – Looking at your finances holistically 10:19 – David's thoughts on recent Fed rate cuts 17:37 – Wrap up   More about David: https://dbb.defense.gov/Board-Members/Board-Members-Bio-view/Article/3160065/ America in 2040: https://americain2040.com/ Get your free copy of David's new book: America in 2024 (while supplies last) Text 941-269-2499 David's Books: America in 2024: Still A Superpower? A Pathway to Success https://www.amazon.com/America-2040-Superpower-Pathway-Success/dp/1665500824 Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility https://www.amazon.com/Comeback-America-Turning-Restoring-Responsibility/dp/0812980727 David on X https://x.com/davidmwalker7 The Tax Bomb https://thetaxbomb.com/   Connect: Website: https://centrusfs.com/podcast/   Call: 800-779-4592 Schedule your complimentary review with Jude: https://calendly.com/centruscalendar-/30min Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOyRZhgLenTC49qNZH9mEuQ/

Remember the thrill of shaking a Magic 8 Ball to get answers to your childhood questions? Would we ace that math test? Would we be famous someday? Well, today, we're bringing a bit of that magic back. But instead of asking about pop quizzes and playground crushes, we're turning to the Magic 8 Ball for advice on something much more important: your retirement planning! What would the Magic 8 Ball have to say about these common retirement questions if it had the wisdom of a financial advisor?   Important Links: Website: http://www.yourplanningpros.com Call: 844-707-7381   ----more---- Transcript:    Speaker 1: Do you guys remember the thrill of shaking that magic eight ball that we had when we were kids and we would hopefully get the answers we were looking for and sometimes be disappointed when not? Well, let's have a little fun this week here on Plan with the Tax Man and go with the magic eight ball's guide to retirement planning. Let's get into it. Speaker 2: Look up in the sky. Speaker 3: It's a bird. Speaker 4: It's a plane. Speaker 5: No, it's the tax man. He may not be a superhero, but Tony Morrow has saved many retirement plans with his extreme knowledge of tax planning strategies. It's time for Plan with the Tax Man. Speaker 1: Hey everybody, welcome into the podcast. Thanks for hanging out with Tony and myself as we talk investing, finance and retirement. And Tony, I'm going to let you break out your magic eight ball and plan some financial stuff with us. I think sometimes people maybe actually approach their finances with this old idea. Sometimes they just don't quite do the things they should be doing, and I thought it'd be kind of fun, be kind of humorous to, I'll ask you some questions. You give us a magic eight ball answer, but then you also obviously elaborate on that for us. What do you think? Tony Morrow: I think that's good. Going back to the magic eight ball, I'm old enough to have had one of those. So for those of you that are young listening, you should look it up on the internet and see what kind of toys we had as kids. Speaker 1: Well, actually they still make it. Tony Morrow: Do they still make it? Oh my goodness. Speaker 1: Yeah, they still make it. Yeah. So the idea popped up with one of our producers or writers because they have little ones and they saw it and I was like, oh, well, there you go. I didn't know they still made that thing, but very cool. Yeah, so some of the really cool toys still exist, so that's always good to see, right? They're not all going the way of the Dodo Bird. I don't think Stretch Armstrong exists anymore, but I loved my Stretch Armstrong. Do you remember that? Tony Morrow: I remember the Stretch Armstrong. We had that and then we cut him and... Speaker 1: To see what was inside it? Tony Morrow: We wanted to see what was inside. Yeah, that was... Speaker 1: Just sort just some sort of goop? Tony Morrow: Yeah, some sort of goop. We liked The Six Million Dollar Man and all that. The bionic eye... Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Six Million Dollar Man and his a little bionic eye. That was so cool. Tony Morrow: Yeah. So it didn't take much to entertain us. Speaker 1: No, it didn't because we didn't have these stupid phones, which was great. So anyway, let's have a little fun. Let's go back in time here. Tony, let's get it started. Should I start saving for retirement now? What does the magic eight ball say and what does Tony say? Tony Morrow: I have to agree with the magic eight ball because it's going to say yes. Definitely right now. It's never too late. And now it doesn't matter where you're at on the spectrum because you're going to need this. I was just in a meeting with my employees talking to them about that, about state of affairs today. Employers are not going to take care of you. This isn't the day of the pension, the old-fashioned pension, and where you work for somebody for 40 years and retiring at this monthly income, you can't outlive. I mean, it's all on us. So if you procrastinate this, the longer you do, the more you're going to have to save to get to your goals, and you need to have some goals anyway, but that is a short down and dirty on that. Speaker 1: Right. Yeah, no, I agree. And thinking about the magic eight ball too. So it had an assortment of answers, right? It had the yes, definitely. It had a bunch of, I guess what we would call the greens or the positives. Without a doubt. It's decidedly so. Outlook good. And then it had things like reply hazy or can't predict now. Had some of that middle ground. And it had some of those reds, right? My reply is, no, don't count on it. So on and so forth. So kind of thinking about those, Tony as you're shaking that and giving us some answers. But yeah, there's no better time than now no matter where you're at. Waiting another day only makes things even more complicated. So should I start saving now? Yes, definitely. Is a million dollars enough to retire on magic eight ball? Tony Morrow: Magic eight ball says, "Reply hazy. Try again." I'm going to answer. I think what they're talking about there is it depends. And ironically too, I was just reading an article this morning in a financial magazine saying that the new retirement numbers like 1.8, 1.9 million. Now again, that's just somebody's opinion and they make their piece for it. Speaker 1: Sure. Well, how you live, where you live, that's going to change all that. Tony Morrow: That's going to change all that. I think probably it depends on where you live, but it could be enough If you want a modest lifestyle, you're definitely not going to be destitute if we're just talking real general terms. But depending on what you want, what your goals are, that certainly may not be enough in today's world to do what you want to do. But that's kind of the number that still everybody's got in their mind, they like to shoot for. We as advisors like to take that a step further and say, "Look, let's really talk about what you want and see if that's enough or not." I think that's the help of an advisor. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, Tony, we're two different people here on this podcast. A million dollars might work for you, and it might be more than I needed to get to. I could work too long and not enjoy my retirement if because I didn't need that much because maybe I have a pension and you don't to your point earlier. Tony Morrow: Right. Speaker 1: Right? Tony Morrow: Yeah. Speaker 1: Or maybe my lifestyle is much more significantly lower than yours or whatever the case might be. So is a million dollars enough? You have reply hazy great because well, maybe and maybe not. So retirement's a math problem. Tony Morrow: It is. Speaker 1: You got to solve the math. So maybe you've got to work to get to the million and maybe you could retire sooner, or maybe you got to work to get to 2 million, but you're not going to know until you run those numbers so definitely make sure that you're sitting down with a qualified professional like Tony on that. Magic eight ball, can I rely on social security for my retirement? Tony Morrow: I've got it in front of me. I looked it up on the internet. I wanted to see, and the first picture is the answer and it says, "Outlook not so good," and I agree with that. Social security that could be a whole topic and it's discussed a lot. I do a lot of webinars on it and I send out a lot of information on it. It is an important piece, especially for those that are getting closer to it, especially when they take it type of thing. But if you're relying on that, social security wasn't meant to be what some people think it is, and it really was an insurance policy to keep people from being destitute and dying in the streets way back when it was [inaudible 00:05:52]. Speaker 1: And we had much less people and all that. All the things we know. And I think Tony, let ask you to this way, can you do it? Yes, I've got a family member who's surviving solely on social security. Are they happy about it? No. Right? Tony Morrow: Right. Speaker 1: What kind of retirement do you want? And if you want the bare minimum, then yeah, it probably can be done because I mean many thousands of people, millions of people are probably doing it, but it's not the ideal thing, right? Tony Morrow: It's not the ideal thing. And this is where you want to have a plan. It can be part of your plan. Now, obviously, if you're at the end, and like you said, that's all you have, it's better than nothing, obviously. Speaker 1: Sure. That was the point. Tony Morrow: I've got an uncle who just passed away and they didn't do any planning. And ironically, he had a pension plan from the state, but he took the highest payout. So once he died, the pension's over, he does have a spouse that's still living. She's in her late eighties, and so they're down to $1,800 a month in social security net, and their rent is 1400. Now that's leaves $400 for everything else. That probably doable, but not great at all. So I mean, you want to probably stay out of that. And then looking forward, in about 10 years, social security trust fund is going to be paying out well more than it's taking in. They're going to have to fix it. That's why the outlook is really not that good. I don't think they'll let it go by the wayside, but it might look different in 10 to three years from now. Speaker 1: I definitely think it's going to look different for anybody under the age of 40. Tony Morrow: Yeah, absolutely. Speaker 1: It's going to almost have to. All right, so let's do a couple more here, Tony. Magic eight ball, can I expect to have fewer expenses in retirement compared to when I'm working? Tony Morrow: Yeah, don't count on it. Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the same thing. That's- Tony Morrow: That's the eight ball answer. Speaker 1: That's the same thing that Marsha Smith said to me when I asked her out to the eighth grade dance. She said, "Don't count on it." People often think this, Tony, they come in and see a financial professional like yourself, and they're like, "Well, listen, we think we got enough to retire on because we're going to spend less money in retirement than we are now." So they're kind of like fudging the math to make themselves feel good about maybe getting into retirement, but they don't truly have that plan. And as you've seen, because you've been doing this for many, many years now, do you want to live a lesser lifestyle in retirement, then don't count on it. Just because expenses change doesn't mean they're necessarily lower. Tony Morrow: Yeah. And then everybody that I see entering retirement two years in, they all are telling me the same thing is my expenses are higher. And it really is, comes down to a couple of things. One, healthcare costs rise tremendously, and two, they're doing more because [inaudible 00:08:22] they're actually out and they're spending more money, which is the whole idea. But the old adage, like you say, of, oh yeah, I can retire and I won't have any expenses. Some will go away, but others will increase. Speaker 1: Others come on. Yeah. Tony Morrow: Yeah. And so you got to watch that when you got to plan it. Speaker 1: Yep, so don't count on them. Don't count on it. It's a great response there from the magic eight ball. And again, all of this is going to come back to that, this is the point of why you need a full strategy design for specialty for yourself, because every situation is going to be a little bit different. So dialing it in, we can get all those generalities because we all do suffer from the same kind of universal questions when it comes to retirement. But then how each puzzle kind of plays out for person to person is different. And that's why it's so important, again, to sit down and talk with qualified professionals like Tony and his team at Tax Doctor Inc. All right, one or two more here, Tony. We'll wrap it up. Will my retirement play and be affected by future changes in tax laws? What might the magic eight ball say? Tony Morrow: Magic eight ball says, "Signs point to yes." I got to think that. Of course, I say that all the time because tax laws change almost all the time now, especially with administrations. And some of them were drastic. Back in the day, I remember tax laws were, major things were pretty few and far between. Now everything changes so quickly. And I definitely think you need to stay on top of that. Obviously you have your advisor for that to help you with that. But if you're not taking that into account that really could blindside you retirement, if you're not careful. Speaker 1: Well, you think about what the tax implications are going to do to us with our retirement plan. And it's one of those ones that can really scalp your plan. So it's like, Hey, we thought we've got a good plan in place, but then taxation rates come along or change or get higher. And obviously with the debt that we have, the signs are certainly likely that that's going to happen. I was just on an interview last week, Tony, with former Comptroller General of the US David Walker, and asked him the question, can we just tax our way out of this debt? And he's like, "No." I mean, even just taxing people to the hilt is not going to get it done. There's going to have to cut spending and there's going to have to be changes in order to fix all this. And the problem is finding politicians that will actually do it and [inaudible 00:10:29] be fiscally responsible. And he was talking about the fact that there hasn't been a fiscally responsible president since Bill Clinton. He said none of the presidents since Bill Clinton have been fiscally responsible. And I thought, well, that's kind of stark, right? So yeah, are we going to be affected by future tax changes? I would say signs certainly point to yes. I think magic eight ball's right on the money there. Okay. Let's see. Should I review my retirement plan annually, magic eight ball? Pretty easy one, I think? Tony Morrow: Without a doubt. Speaker 1: Without a doubt. Tony Morrow: Eight ball. And obviously that's an easy one. I mean, if you're not doing that, really then going to end up getting probably off track, especially if you don't do it for long periods of time. Speaker 1: Yeah. Tony Morrow: This is where I believe that an advisor can offer the most value, is to at least meet with your advisor, I would recommend this at least once a year. Make sure you're still on track. Make sure that your plan is still performing the way you want it to. And gives you a chance to make changes because maybe even your goals are something change. And if you just, especially in the accumulation stage when you're younger, you're just planning pretty easy to skip this and just hope for the best. And you don't want to do that because obviously as things change and a lot of the stuff that we just talked about comes into play, suddenly you could be way off. Speaker 1: Very true. Tony Morrow: Not even know it until it's a little bit too late. Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, course corrections along the way are important. That's why you have those, so certainly, yep, certainly a good idea to do and we'll make this last one a layup here. So should I consider working with a professional as I near retirement? The magic eight ball's got to say yes. Tony Morrow: Magic eight ball says, "Yes." Yeah, he's popping out saying yes. Speaker 1: That's right. That's right. Tony Morrow: I think especially as you get near towards retirement, your focus changes less on accumulation maybe to more of income distribution. Do I have enough to live on and how's this going to look for me? And that's where I think advisor can help not only continue to build things after retirement and making sure you're getting the income you need along with a little bit hopefully of growth and expense management. So I definitely would say yes. I'm not saying that you shouldn't work [inaudible 00:12:28] advisor even if you're young, but it's all the same, I think order to get to where you want to go, have that good plan in place. I think an advisor is a necessity in my opinion. Speaker 1: Yeah, especially as you do near retirement, we get older. Can you get by DIY-ing and building your wealth when you're younger? Yeah. I mean, many people do, and it's a little bit easier to build it than it is to do the preservation stage, which is retirement. But as you get closer to it, there's a lot more to deal with, which we obviously talk about on the regular and that's why you need to turn to a qualified professional like Tony, who's got 30 plus years in the industry. He's a CPA, a CFP, and an EA so he's a great resource for you to tap into. If you're listening to the podcast and you're not already working with him, consider reaching out to them at yourplanningpros.com. That is yourplanningpros.com. And don't forget to subscribe to the podcast so you can catch new and future episodes by subscribing on Apple or Spotify or whatever platform you like using. You can find all that information again at Tony's website yourplanningpros.com, and get yourself onto the calendar with he and his team at Tax Doctor Inc. Tony, thanks for hanging out my friend and walking down the nostalgia path with the old magic eight ball here. Tony Morrow: Yeah, sounds good. We'll see you next time. It was a lot of fun. Speaker 1: Always appreciate you and we'll catch you next time here on Plan With the Tax Man with Tony Morrow. Speaker 7: Securities offered through Avantax Investment Services SM, member FINRA SIPC. Investment advisory services offered through Avantax Advisory services. Insurance services offered through an Avantax affiliated insurance agency. Investment strategies discussed in this episode may not be suitable for all investors. Please consult with a financial professional.  

Will the United States remain a Superpower in 2040? What are the most significant challenges facing the U.S.? What key reforms are necessary to secure a better future for this country? Join host Michael Keegan as he explores these questions and more with Dave Walker, former Comptroller General of the US and author of America in 2040: Still a Superpower? A Pathway to Success.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Will the United States remain a Superpower in 2040? What are the most significant challenges facing the U.S.? What key reforms are necessary to secure a better future for this country? Join host Michael Keegan as he explores these questions and more with Dave Walker, former Comptroller General of the US and author of America in 2040: Still a Superpower? A Pathway to Success. 

Send us a Text Message.In this episode, Dawn speaks with David Walker, a seasoned professional in human capital strategy and former Comptroller General of the United States. They dive into Dave's unique journey through human resources and leadership, highlighting his extensive experience from Arthur Anderson to the Government Accountability Office. Key topics of this episode include the distinction between leadership and management, the importance of communication, and qualities essential for effective leadership. Dave shares insights from his own career, including his tenure as a professor at the Naval Academy and his principles on attracting and retaining top talent. Support the Show.Connect with Dawn:Website: www.managewithhart.comInstagram: @managewithhart

Set against the backdrop of Truth in Accounting's 2024 Financial State of the Union report, this educational conversation aims to examine the fiscal condition of our Federal government with our distinguished guest, David M. Walker, former Comptroller General of the United States and CEO of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) for almost ten years. Mr. Walker is a nationally and internationally recognized fiscal responsibility, government transformation/accountability, human capital, and retirement security expert. He has 40 years of executive-level experience in the public, private, and non-profit sectors, including heading three federal agencies, two non-profits, and a global service line for Arthur Andersen LLP. 

David Walker, former Comptroller General of the United States, assesses the state of the nation's current fiscal and economic condition and discusses the consequences of the failure to act to address some of the biggest challenges we face today.

We have the honor of being joined by David Walker, former Comptroller General of the United States and someone who was the CEO of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) from 1998 to 2008.Needless to say, he has a lot of insight into where the country is headed and how that could affect your dollars.In this episode, David is helping us discuss the state of the American economy, some strategies the average person can do to prepare, how the country might achieve fiscal responsibility, and more!This was truly an insightful conversation and it's one you don't want to miss!//Grab a Free Resource at http://retirewith210.com/ --Prefer to watch? Find video versions of every episode on our YouTube channel.Learn how our team at 210 Financial can help you plan for the future at www.210financial.com --Like more free resources? Grab one of our free guides here.//Investment advisory products and services made available through AE Wealth Management, LLC (AEWM), a Registered Investment Advisor.Insurance products are offered through the insurance business 210 Financial. 210 Financial is also an Investment Advisory practice that offers products and services through AE Wealth Management, LLC (AEWM), a Registered Investment Advisor. AEWM does not offer insurance products. The insurance products offered by 210 Financial are not subject to Investment Advisor requirements.All investments are subject to risk including the potential loss of principal. Any references to protection, safety or lifetime income, generally refer to fixed insurance products, never securities or investments. Any and all other services related to insurance are an outside business activity and are not offered through or supervised by AE Wealth Management, LLC. Please remember that converting an employer plan account to a Roth IRA is a taxable event. Annuities are insurance products that may be subject to restrictions, surrender charges, holding periods, or early withdrawal fees which vary by carrier. Annuities are not back or FDIC insured.This podcast is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as the sole basis for financial decisions, nor should it be construed as advice designed to meet the particular needs of an individual's situation.210 Financial is not permitted to offer and no statement made during this show shall constitute tax or legal advice. Our firm is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Government or any governmental agency. The information and opinions contained herein provided by third parties have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed by 210 Financial.AEWM provides services without regard to political affiliation and the views of individual advisors are not necessarily the views of AEWM. David Walker is not affiliated with 210 Financial or AE Wealth Management, LLC. Opinions expressed by David Walker are his own opinions and not necessarily the views of AEWM.  2135194-12/23

Vincent and Joel sit down with Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Bruce W. Bannister. They discuss the budget, how it really works behind the scenes, the Freedom Caucus's Extremism and its negative impacts, the practice of Family Law, leadership in the upstate, and what it was like to test whether   DONALD TRUMP's HAIR WAS REAL. Hear about the downfall of South Carolina's Comptroller General and who may replace him, listen to the recent developments on Medical Marijuana, Economic development and Scout Motor's new facility in the midlands, the arguments for Judicial Appointment reform, How the budget really works, and so much more!Keep up to Date with BITBR: Twitter.com/BITBRpodcastFacebook.com/BITBRpodcasthttps://bourboninthebackroom.buzzsprout.com

Vincent and Joel sit down with Sumter's own Senator J. Thomas McElveen III and discuss S.C.'s crazy death penalty abortion bill, hate crime legislation, the new State budget and how it works, big pay raises coming to state employees, tax relief, the Comptroller General's grievous mistake, Scout Motor's economic development in the midlands, the Upcoming Presidential Election, and so much more!Get your latest Statehouse update and hear firsthand the rationale behind some of the legislature's most controversial bills. Join Senators Sheheen and Lourie in this week's episode where they take a deeper look at upcoming legislation and lawmakers' actions in S.C. Keep up to Date with BITBR: Twitter.com/BITBRpodcastFacebook.com/BITBRpodcasthttps://bourboninthebackroom.buzzsprout.com

There's hardly anything that POTUS loves to brag about more than his ‘economic success'. He is, after all, a self-proclaimed “capitalist”. Even in last week's State of the Union address, he boldly claimed that he “cut the deficit by more than $1.7 trillion-- the largest deficit reduction in American history.” And he's made that same assertion over and over and over again. Unfortunately it's a complete lie. And just yesterday the Treasury Department released financial documents proving it. Every year the federal government publishes an annual financial report; it's sort of like what big public company like Apple does. The annual report contains financial statements, plus hundreds of pages of discussion, details, and footnotes. And yesterday afternoon they released the annual financial report for Fiscal Year 2022, which just ended a few months ago. It goes without saying that the government's financial condition is completely atrocious. Their “net financial position”, which is sort of like the net worth of the federal government, fell to MINUS $34.0 trillion… which is worse than the MINUS $29.9 trillion in FY21. The projected social security funding deficit also got worse… from $71 trillion to $75.9 trillion. The real headline to me, though, is the budget deficit lie. The President claims that deficit last fiscal year was $1.4 trillion, and that he (and he alone?) brought it down by $1.7 trillion. But that's not true at all. It turns out that the “budget deficit” is actually an inaccurate figure that can easily be manipulated. If you're a finance or accounting type, you might be surprised to learn that the budget deficit is determined on a ‘cash basis' and not ‘accrual basis'. This means that officials can easily accelerate certain revenues and push off certain expenses to massage the data and make the budget deficit appear better than it really is. Businesses aren't allowed to do this. Nearly every other organization in the country of any reasonable size has to follow strict accounting rules, booking revenue when it's earned, and accruing expenses when they're incurred. This provides a more honest, transparent, and standardized way of reporting financial results. So whenever they talk about the ‘budget deficit', this is really just a manipulated number that doesn't conform to proper accounting standards. Naturally this raises an important question: how much would the federal government's annual budget deficit be if they conformed to those proper accounting standards? i.e. the same ones that every major corporation has to follow? Well, lucky for us, we don't have have to guess. Because the government actually publishes that number too. They call it their “Net Operating Cost”. And it essentially represents the REAL budget deficit. It turns out that the FY22 Net Operating Cost of the federal government was MINUS $4.1 trillion. And that figure was MUCH worse than FY21's Net Operating Cost of $3.1 trillion. So this guy did not, in fact, “cut the deficit”. The real deficit, as determined by Net Operating Cost, INCREASED by a trillion dollars. There's so much more in this report, though. One of the other interesting points, in fact, is that the government actually failed its audit. Again. The Comptroller-General states very plainly that there are numerous “material misstatements” in the government's financial reporting and internal controls. There are actually laws that are supposed to prevent this from happening. Twenty years ago Congress passed something called the Sarbannes-Oxley Act, which imposed CRIMINAL penalties for company executives who fail their audits. If the federal government were held to the same standard as the private sector, dozens of officials should be facing jail time right now. Instead they'll retire to their generous, fully-funded pensions and receive lavish board seats and prestigious awards. They will never be held accountable. You, on the other hand,

FTX, a large cryptocurrency exchange, recently went bankrupt, leading to calls for government regulation of cryptocurrencies. But you might be wondering, what are cryptocurrencies? In part one of this two-part series, listen to expert testimony provided over a four-year period informing Congress about the cryptocurrency industry, the promise of blockchain, problems - both real and overblown - with this new technology, and how best to regulate this complicated industry. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! View the shownotes on our website at https://congressionaldish.com/cd264-cryptocurrencies-and-blockchain Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD235: The Safe Haven of Sanctions Evaders CD262: Inside C-SPAN with Howard Mortman Proof of Work Jake Frankenfield. May 2, 2022. "What Is Proof of Work (PoW) in Blockchain?" Investopedia. Initial Coin Offering (ICO) Jake Frankenfield. Aug 18, 2022. “Initial Coin Offering (ICO): Coin Launch Defined, with Examples.” Investopedia. Sherwin Dowlat. Jul 11, 2018. “Cryptoasset Market Coverage Initiation: Network Creation.” Satis Group. Madison Cawthorn The Associated Press. Dec 7, 2022. "Rep. Madison Cawthorn broke rules over a 'meme' crypto, a House panel finds." NPR. Regulations Cheyenne Ligon. Dec 5, 2022. “The ‘Good Cop and Bad Cop' of US Crypto Regulations.” CoinDesk. Bills S.4760 - Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act of 2022 Sponsor: Sen. Debbie Stabenow Audio Sources Cleaning Up Cryptocurrency: The Energy Impacts of Blockchains January 20, 2022 House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Watch on YouTube Witnesses: Ari Juels, Weill Family Foundation and Joan and Sanford I. Weill Professor, Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute, Cornell Tech John Belizaire, Chief Executive Officer, Soluna Computing, Inc. Brian Brooks, Chief Executive Officer, BitFury Steve Wright, Former Chief Executive Officer, Chelan County Public Utility District and Bonneville Power Administration Gregory Zerzan, Shareholder Jordan Ramis P.C. Schemes and Subversion: How Bad Actors and Foreign Governments Undermine and Evade Sanctions Regimes June 16, 2021 House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy Watch on YouTube Witnesses: Jesse Spiro, Global Head of Policy & Regulatory Affairs, Chainalysis Eric B. Lorber, Senior Director, Center on Economic and Financial Power, Foundation for Defense of Democracies Dollars Against Democracy: Domestic Terrorist Financing in the Aftermath of Insurrection February 25, 2021 House Financial Services Committee, Subcommittee on National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy Witness Daniel Glaser, Former Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury Examining Regulatory Frameworks for Digital Currencies and Blockchain July 30, 2019 Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Watch on C-SPAN Committee concluded a hearing to examine regulatory frameworks for digital currencies and blockchain, including S. 2243, to amend the Expedited Funds Availability Act to require that funds deposited be available for withdrawal in real-time. Witnesses: Jeremy Allaire, Co-Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Circle, on behalf of The Blockchain Association Dr. Rebecca M. Nelson, Specialist in International Trade and Finance, Congressional Research Service Professor Mehrsa Baradaran, Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law Exploring the Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Ecosystem October 11, 2018 Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Watch on C-SPAN Committee concluded a hearing to examine the cryptocurrency and blockchain ecosystem, including S. 3179, to require the Comptroller General of the United States to carry out a study on how virtual currencies and online marketplaces are used to buy, sell, or facilitate the financing of goods or services associated with sex trafficking or drug trafficking. Witnesses: Dr. Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics and International Business, New York University Stern School of Business Peter Van Valkenburgh, Director of Research, Coin Center Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)