Don’t let DC or Wall Street kill the TVA’s power



The federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority is the largest public utility in the country, providing electricity to Tennessee and six surrounding states. And because the president appoints its board, it’s also a political football.

Democrat administrations have stacked the TVA board with green energy zealots committed to phasing out carbon fuels in favor of wind and solar. Donald Trump has responded by firing directors who embraced that faux utopian agenda, along with those who allowed the executives to reward themselves with high seven-figure compensation packages while outsourcing jobs to noncitizens.

The blue-collar working class has become a key element in the Trump coalition. If Trump moves to privatize the TVA, it will feel like a betrayal to the very people who have had his back.

Now a new tempest is brewing: Should the TVA be privatized?

Usurped by green zealots

The TVA was established as a public corporation in 1933 to provide flood control, rural electrification, and economic development in the Tennessee River Valley, as well as the surrounding areas of Appalachia. For almost a century, it has delivered abundant, inexpensive, and reliable electricity.

Most of its electricity comes from nuclear (42%) and natural gas (31%), while coal and hydroelectric account for about 23% combined.

Despite years of agitation from anti-carbon activists and Obama- and Biden-era appointees, the TVA’s power mix has remained overwhelmingly carbon-based — for one reason: It works.“Renewable” energy sources (primarily solar) only constitute about 4% of its total electricity production. And, as always, solar energy drops to zero at night.

A third way

The debate has focused on two extremes: Keep the TVA under federal ownership or privatize it. However, a third option offers a middle ground: Transfer ownership to the seven states that rely on it.

Moving ownership — and board appointments — to the seven primarily red states that rely on the TVA would ensure that green activists can’t destroy its ability to provide inexpensive, reliable electricity, while also maintaining the TVA’s status as a public utility.

The argument for keeping the TVA federally owned is that it has been very successful for a century now in providing electricity and flood control to much of Southern Appalachia. It also provides significant employment to the region.

Current corporate culture driven by private equity slashes employment to reduce labor expenses; relaxes quality and safety controls to meet budget-cutting goals; terminates the most experienced employees to eliminate their salaries; and outsources as many jobs as possible to non-Americans. Naturally, the fear of privatization is legitimate by those who rely on the TVA for electricity and employment.

Though the Trump administration hasn’t yet formally announced that it is considering privatization, many speculate that it is on the table. As the Atlantic reported recently:

Trump hasn’t spoken recently about privatizing the TVA. But in his first term, he proposed selling off the TVA’s power lines to a private buyer in 2018 and again in 2020. Now, he is positioned to stack the TVA’s board with new members. That, combined with his administration’s relentless push to shrink the federal government, has revived speculation about privatization — which many in Trump’s MAGA orbit have long argued should be the utility’s fate.

Most of the TVA’s 11,000-plus employees are skilled tradesmen and women who belong to unions. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers represents about 10,000 TVA employees. It has issued a pre-emptive warning to the Trump administration, stating:

The TVA is the primary reason the Deep South became the economic force it is today, and IBEW members have been there every step of the way. It’s an American success story that required skilled, union labor. We will fight tooth and nail attempts to turn it into a for-profit corporation whose only concern is ultra-rich shareholders.

I have had occasion throughout my career to work with companies that employ IBEW electricians, as well as companies that contract out for electrical work using the IBEW. These skilled tradesmen are overwhelmingly patriotic, America-first MAGA voters who detest the anti-carbon activists on the left. They also detest corporate America’s war on American labor.

The blue-collar working class has become a key element in the Trump coalition. If Trump moves to privatize the TVA, it will feel like a betrayal to the very people who have had his back.

Real concerns

Libertarian purists recoil at any level of government owning a utility. Yet privatizing the Tennessee Valley Authority as a regulated monopoly offers little difference from government ownership. Without a free-market competitor willing to build nuclear plants and hydroelectric dams, the result is the same.

Chattanooga’s Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R), whose district includes the highest concentration of TVA employees, strongly opposes privatization. Knoxville Republican Rep. Tim Burchett, whose district houses TVA headquarters, is more open. He has said:

Any organization that pays their head $6 million a year plus bonus needs to be evaluated. For too long, the Tennessee Valley Authority has operated in the shadows with closed-door meetings and minimal transparency. I have sponsored, passed, and supported bills to fix these issues. I am a believer in capitalism and the free market. Any option that maximizes efficiency, incentivizes transparency, and keeps prices low for ratepayers should be explored.

Burchett has built a reputation fighting pork in Washington and is right to question the TVA’s waste and secrecy. But full-scale privatization isn’t the answer.

A better path would be to transfer ownership to the states. That compromise could deliver efficiency, accountability, and local control — while keeping the TVA safe from both federal meddling and Wall Street overreach.

RELATED: Tennessee Valley Authority gets a Trump-style reckoning

Photo by CHUNYIP WONG via Getty Images

Well-intentioned defenders of federal ownership, from Fleischmann to the IBEW, assume that the TVA’s future will look like its past. It won’t. Democrats in Washington will never allow the TVA to remain a major provider of carbon-based energy. The most conservative region in America should not gamble its power supply on the whims of left-wing swamp creatures.

Delivering for the people, not bureaucrats

The mechanics of ownership among the seven states would require negotiation, but one model could grant Tennessee 40% ownership — reflecting its dominant use and production — with the other six states dividing the remaining 60%.

That structure would put accountability where it belongs: in the hands of state leaders answerable to the families and businesses who depend on the TVA. Local officials would bear political responsibility for keeping the lights on and the air conditioning running — not distant bureaucrats in D.C.

Buc-ee’s gets rich by doing everything Wall Street hates



Buc-ee’s may be technically categorized as a “convenience store,” but for millions of Americans, it’s more like a roadside pilgrimage. No matter how big its new stores are, they remain packed. The chain has a fanatically loyal customer base, and it has become a destination for those not fortunate enough to have a Buc-ee's nearby.

What’s the draw? Buc-ee's has enormous restrooms that are immaculately clean, cheap gas with often more than 100 pumps, a kitschy-fun shopping experience, and exceptional food — including Texas barbecue and an in-house bakery. In addition, it’s heavily staffed with low-turnover, career employees.

I shudder to think of the destruction that would be brought upon the Buc-ee's business model if private equity decided to “fix” its operations.

Buc-ee's is thriving by rejecting numerous destructive “best practices” currently embraced by corporate America and private equity.

Fortunately for Buc-ee's, it’s still privately owned by its founders, Arch Aplin and Don Wasek, whose business acumen came from running convenience stores and working directly with customers and employees. They weren’t poisoned by an elite business school education, where modern executives learn that customers are prey and employees are a pestilence whose compensation reduces executive bonuses.

The winning formula

The magic formula to Buc-ee's success is built on a very simple foundation: clean restrooms and cheap gas. It first developed its cult following in Texas by being a place you could always count on for a clean restroom while driving the interstates. Good candies, food, and pastries then added to the appeal.

Nowadays, the same foundation is in place: clean restrooms and cheap gas. But once a customer walks inside to use the restroom, a wonderland of food and products awaits. The food and merchandise are not necessarily cheap, but they’re high-quality, and many customers enjoy making those purchases as part of their Buc-ee's experience. But it’s still possible to visit Buc-ee's for gas and a potty stop without paying a premium.

Standing up to Wall Street

By contrast, Las Vegas tourism is down dramatically — in no small part because of the city's outrageous pricing. The old Vegas model of cheap buffets and affordable rooms to get people into the casinos was not unlike Buc-ee's lure of clean restrooms and cheap gas. But the Wall Street wizards now in control of Vegas have ditched the old model in favor of revenue-mining every possible moment of a visitor’s stay.

As Jeffrey Turner explained on his Substack, “The MBAs and data-crunchers at the corporate casino have installed Disneyland pricing into their models.”

Buc-ee's still understands the power of the previous business model that Las Vegas abandoned: Provide a high-quality “loss leader” — or two — to get the customers in the door, and then provide high-margin products that entice them to open their wallets.

For those who work at Buc-ee's, it’s more than a job — it’s a career. Buc-ee's doesn’t consider its staff to be “unskilled” labor who deserve near-minimum wages. Their excellent compensation results in lower turnover and better customer service. The food at Buc-ee's might be a little more expensive than at a nearby fast-food joint, but it’s of much higher quality and served by professional staff — things customers will gladly pay a premium for.

As I discussed in a recent column, revenue mining has become an all-too-common corporate business strategy these days, especially in private equity. Revenue mining exploits customers while slashing costs to the bone, shipping jobs oversees, firing veteran employees who know the business best, wrecking customer service, downgrading quality, and killing innovation. That pernicious strategy may briefly produce record short-term profits, but it also destroys customer loyalty and brand value.

I shudder to think of the destruction that would be brought upon the Buc-ee's business model if private equity decided to “fix” its operations.

RELATED: Fear the beaver: How a gas station became a cult (and why you should consider joining)

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The famous Buc-ee's restrooms by themselves produce no revenue, and they occupy significant square footage. Its full-time staffers make about $40,000 annually simply to keep these restrooms clean. In other words, the restrooms are a loss leader, drawing customers in but producing no revenue. That’s anathema to private equity.

Private equity would slash the restroom maintenance, eliminate or outsource the cleaning crews, and decrease their square footage. Or maybe they’d try to charge admission to the restrooms. But they would undoubtedly kill the golden goose — the restrooms — and thus lose the golden egg that gets customers to the checkout registers.

A job sign outside a Buc-ee's in Alabama recently showed that several manager positions within a Buc-ee's pay in excess of $100,000 per year, and the store’s general manager can earn more than $200,000 per year. Wall Street or private equity would waste no time in slashing Buc-ee's employee head count and compensation, assuming it would increase the bottom line. But it wouldn’t; it would simply destroy the staffing that makes Buc-ee's success possible.

RELATED: Corporate America is eating its seed corn — and our future

Photo by Tim Grist Photography via Getty Images

Private equity would also be aghast at the “lost revenue” from offering below-market gas prices. Estimates are that Buc-ee's sells about 400,000 gallons of gas per day. Just charging 5 cents more per gallon would bring in an additional $7 million annually, all things being equal.

But all things aren’t equal.

A success story worth copying

Buc-ee's sells such a high volume of gas because its prices are lower. Buc-ee's understands that a lower gross profit per gallon with higher volume produces more gross profit than lower volume at a higher price. But more importantly, those swarms of cars fueling up on inexpensive gas are full of people who stroll inside and purchase high-margin discretionary products. It’s a simple concept that is alien to rapacious financial wizards, but one that’s well understood by retailers on the ground.

Buc-ee's success is a refutation of prevailing business wisdom. May it serve as an example to the next generation of business leaders on the importance of developing a loyal customer base with abundant staff, career wages, great customer service, high-quality products, and an enjoyable customer experience.

Corporate America is eating its seed corn — and our future



“Don’t eat your seed corn.” Every farmer gets it. Every American with common sense gets it. The only people who don’t? The people who run corporate America.

A farmer keeps part of this year’s crop for planting next year. He could sell it now and pocket more cash — but then there’s nothing to plant, nothing to harvest, nothing to live on later. That’s obvious to anyone who works the land.

Capitalism creates wealth. But when wealth is extracted at the expense of the product, the people, and the future — that’s not capitalism. That’s predatory ransacking.

But in today’s boardrooms, the rule is reversed. Short-term profit is all that matters. Strip the future bare, cash out, and leave the mess for someone else to clean up.

The rewards for this corporate vandalism are massive: fat bonuses, stock windfalls, golden parachutes. The damage — lost jobs, gutted industries, shoddy products — is someone else’s problem.

And the fastest way to pull it off? Slash costs to the bone. Ship jobs overseas. Push out the people who know the business best. Wreck customer service. Kill innovation. Downgrade quality until the product barely passes as the same thing you used to make.

Private equity and corporate strategists have a new trick for squeezing customers dry: “revenue mining.” That means cross-selling, upselling, jacking up prices, and hiding the real costs in creative contracts.

At first, it works. Existing customers tend to stick around — inertia keeps them from bolting right away. But each gimmick drives off a slice of loyal business. Combine that with lower service quality and cheaper products, and the exodus accelerates. Before long, the company is stuck with an overpriced product, lousy service, and no easy way to attract new customers.

I’ve watched this play out in my own life. My exterminator. My alarm company. My HVAC service. All wrecked by the same formula. The local phone number? Redirected to a call center overseas — if I can navigate the phone tree. The people I used to know? Gone. The contract? Suddenly much more expensive.

The service I get for my trouble? Less than before. And when the tech finally arrives, all he says is, “Things are much different now.” They might wring one more payment out of me, but I’m already shopping for a local outfit that treats me like a customer instead of prey.

In short, they ate their seed corn. They got one fat harvest out of me, then pushed me straight into the arms of their competition — for good.

At least my dentist is still a one-man shop who owns his own business. But even dentistry is under siege. Private equity-backed dental chains are giving dentistry a bad name, pushing unnecessary procedures just to meet revenue targets.

A USA Today investigation titled “Dentists under pressure to drill ‘healthy teeth’ for profit” uncovered one such example:

Dental Express was part of North American Dental Group, a chain backed by private-equity investors. At least a year earlier, the company had told dentists like Griesmer to meet aggressive revenue targets or risk being kicked out of the chain. Those targets ratcheted up pressure to find problems that might not even exist.

In my professional career, I have seen too many examples of the same pattern: private equity buying and destroying great businesses that had loyal customer bases. To be fair, I have also seen examples of private equity groups buying a business, embracing its product, and continuing to provide good service. I wish it weren’t the exception, though.

More often, private equity groups treat the acquisition as a mine: extract the capital through dividends and existing customers while accruing significant debt. In fact, the funds used to purchase the business are often borrowed and never even repaid.

Dig until empty, leave a crater, and move on.

An X user put it perfectly:

Some private equity is genuinely investing in the business to grow a solid business. This is good, full stop.

Some private equity buys up dying businesses, breaks them up, sells off the valuable bits and sometimes lets the worthless bits go through bankruptcy, taking advantage of bankruptcy laws to profit. This is good, actually, as it recycles the resources of dying businesses into good businesses.

The third type of private equity buys good businesses that are doing OK or even doing well. Then they sell off all the assets, load the company up on as much debt as they can, pay themselves giant dividends, and then take advantage of the same bankruptcy laws to discharge all the debt so they never have to pay it back. This is really bad.

This isn’t just happening to small companies. It’s hitting America’s industrial backbone.

I’ve written before about how Carlos Tavares, the former CEO of Stellantis (corporate parent of Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep), awarded himself a $39 million compensation package for making short-term decisions that briefly maximized profit before revenue and sales collapsed, leaving dealers with overpriced, outdated inventory. He made off with the profits, then left behind a hollow pipeline for the dealers truly committed to Stellantis.

RELATED: Private equity’s losing streak is coming for your 401(k)

Greenseas via iStock/Getty Images

I also covered Boeing’s disastrous $43 billion stock buyback binge. The short-term boost to its share price came at the expense of critical investment in its products — and has cost the aerospace giant $35 billion since 2019. To plug the hole, Boeing had to raise another $15 billion in capital and push back the already overdue launch of the 777, citing “negligent engineering.”

That phrase used to be unthinkable in the aerospace industry. Boeing made it possible by gutting its engineering and technical staff to feed Wall Street.

The consequences keep coming. This month, United Airlines grounded much of its fleet after a failure in its proprietary “Unimatic” flight system. The airline claims it doesn’t know what caused the failure.

But I have a strong suspicion.

In recent years, United has aggressively outsourced its technical operations to contractors using foreign labor — often H-1B visa workers — at lower cost. One subcontractor, Vista Applied Solutions Group, boasts that it helps clients “increase productivity” while achieving “considerable cost savings.”

That’s great — until the system fails and planes can’t fly. United may have saved on salaries. The short-term reduction in salary expense has eaten United’s seed corn, leaving the company with a technology system that can’t keep its planes in the air.

It is imperative for those of us who defend capitalism to also repudiate those engaged in practices that give it a bad name. Capitalism creates wealth. But when wealth is extracted at the expense of the product, the people, and the future — that’s not capitalism. That’s predatory ransacking.

And it deserves our scorn.

Private equity’s losing streak is coming for your 401(k)



One of the late comedian George Carlin’s most famous rants gave us the line, "It's a big club ... and you ain't in it.” That sentiment rings especially true when it comes to the financial services industry, where wealthy investors and insiders gatekeep the most lucrative opportunities for themselves and their friends.

So what should you think when they suddenly want to let you in?

The private equity party is a bit dim right now, and that’s why they are sending out more invitations. Be careful before you RSVP.

There's no red flag bigger than when someone wants to let you in on something very exclusive — especially if it’s from people who’ve spent decades keeping you out of the club.

Case in point: the private equity industry’s latest push to open its funds to everyday retail investors.

The private equity world is one I know well, as a recovering investment banker who works with a firm to evaluate deals. My husband also worked in the sector. Like any other industry, it has both good and bad players.

Private equity involves deploying capital to buy ownership stakes in private companies, distinct from equity invested through the public markets in publicly traded companies. These firms are often actively involved with the company, as opposed to the more passive investing in public market companies. Their stakes are typically substantial, often including majority ownership.

The good players in private equity provide capital, professionalization of businesses, governance, business insights, and capital for growth. They may reward employees with an ownership stake to align incentives.

Some private equity players, however, focus on financialization — that is, playing around with the capital structure of a company and not adding a lot of value otherwise. Private equity is rife with examples of firms that have ruined businesses with too much leverage and engaged in a variety of greedy — and often, outright abhorrent — behaviors.

But this latest trend isn’t about good firms versus bad firms. It’s about the broader industry’s poor performance — and desperation.

The returns are drying up

Private equity has a problem. Too much money has flooded the space in recent years, driving up valuations and pushing down returns. Funds are struggling to find new investors to cover their high management fees. So now they’re turning to you.

They aren’t suddenly being generous. They’re just trying to survive.

According to the Financial Times, a major private market index has underperformed the S&P 500 over the past one-, three-, five-, and 10-year periods. Any outperformance was skewed toward earlier years — and even then, it came with significantly higher fees and far less liquidity.

This underperformance comes with heavy fees and a lack of liquidity for your investment. It's not a coincidence that you are seeing private equity opening up to retail now when it is struggling from deal competition, higher valuations, higher capital costs, and slower deal exits.

RELATED: Red states get it: Economic freedom beats blue-state gimmicks

Nuthawut Somsuk via iStock/Getty Images

Speaking of slower exits, the Wall Street Journal noted that “private equity remains the biggest fee generator for the broader Wall Street ecosystem of banks and advisers” and that private equity firms are sitting on a record number of companies that they are waiting to exit — that is, sell and record a profit ... or a loss. Longer hold times for private equity firms mean they are not returning capital to their investors, and, in turn, the investors are not reinvesting in the latest and greatest fund.

Whether it’s the new push to allow private investments into your 401(k) or your financial planner calling you with “new, exciting alternative investment opportunities,” please be appropriately skeptical. Always probe a fund’s track record (especially over the past several years), fee structure, and whether it is a fit for your objectives and goals.

The private equity party is a bit dim right now, and that’s why they are sending out more invitations. Be careful before you RSVP.

Harvard’s broke and begging — but it still won’t change its ways



Amid all the turmoil involving Harvard — most recently, the Trump administration withholding federal grants and making it the poster child for academic rot — the poison Ivy League’s liquidity problem is worsening. In the past two months, Harvard has turned to the bond markets twice to quickly raise over $1 billion in cash. This follows a scramble in 2024 to raise $1.5 billion through similar bond offerings, which still fell short of its initial target.

Revulsion to Harvard’s institutional wokeness and its embrace of open anti-Semitism by faculty and students was already causing a financial squeeze. As I wrote in November: “Despite an endowment exceeding $50 billion, Harvard had to expedite bond offerings earlier this year to quickly raise $1.6 billion in cash.” Harvard was already in a cash crunch before President Donald Trump announced he was turning off the spigot of federal grants.

Harvard cannot afford to also lose its revenue stream from the federal government — but it’s going to.

But why is Harvard facing a liquidity crisis if its endowment is truly worth $53 billion as reported? Per published reports as of 2024, only about 20% of Harvard’s endowment is held in liquid assets such as cash, stocks, and bonds. The remaining 80% is tied up in illiquid investments — 71% in private equity and hedge funds and another 8% in real estate and other alternative assets.

While the endowment appears impressive on paper, it produces relatively little usable cash for Harvard — roughly $2 billion annually. And when the market turns south, as it recently has, the financial gimmickry underpinning these investments can actually consume cash.

A liquidity crisis

In early March, Harvard announced it would return to the debt markets to raise $450 million in cash via tax-exempt bonds. Barely five weeks later, the university had to rush another $750 million bond offering — this time in taxable bonds — bringing its total new debt to $1.1 billion. According to the Harvard Crimson, this pushes the university’s total debt burden to $8.2 billion.

Despite its wealth, Harvard relies on billions of dollars in non-tuition revenue each year to pay its bills. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, the university reported $6.5 billion in operating revenue. Of that, just 21% came from tuition. Nearly half — 45% — came from philanthropic donations, while federal grants comprised another significant portion.

With the donors starting to hold their noses and sit on their wallets, Harvard cannot afford to also lose its revenue stream from the federal government — but it’s going to. The Trump administration recently announced that it would suspend $2.2 billion in federal grants.

Consequences of ‘wokeness’

Meanwhile, Harvard President Alan Garber remains committed to admissions policies that appear racially discriminatory, as well as remaining steadfast in his commitment to keeping Harvard a welcoming space for foreign nationals who are hostile to Jews. As reported by CNN:

Harvard refused to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, ban masks at campus protests, enact merit-based hiring and admissions reforms, and reduce the power of faculty and administrators the Republican administration has called ‘more committed to activism than scholarship.’

Despite Garber’s repugnant principles, they also invite more problems for the school. Like Bob Jones University before it, Harvard’s policies are racially discriminatory. Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status for racially discriminatory admissions policies and prohibiting interracial dating. Now Harvard may suffer the same fate:

The Internal Revenue Service is making plans to rescind the tax-exempt status of Harvard University, according to two sources familiar with the matter, which would be an extraordinary step of retaliation as the Trump administration seeks to turn up pressure on the university that has defied its demands to change its hiring and other practices.

Donors have long benefited from itemized tax deductions for their munificent donations to Harvard’s operating budget. If Harvard loses its tax-exempt status, donations will no longer be tax-deductible. While I do not doubt that donors had a genuine passion for Harvard while donating to the school, the tax ramifications were also a motivator. Losing the tax deductibility of donations would constrict that revenue stream even further.

Out of cash, out of time

Ultimately, Harvard’s multibillion-dollar bond offerings may barely serve as a Band-Aid if federal and donor revenue streams dry up. However illiquid the famed endowment may be, the university may soon be forced to start selling what assets it can. According to New York Post columnist Charles Gasparino, “Wall Street execs who follow the college endowment business say it's only a matter of time before Harvard starts selling what's liquid in its portfolio, i.e., stocks.” He is also trying to confirm if Harvard is, in fact, already selling liquid assets held by the endowment.

Harvard cannot borrow its way out of its cash crisis. For now, the university scrambles for more loans to cover bills and meet payroll. But lenders will not endlessly bankroll unsecured debt from a tarnished institution bleeding cash. A day of reckoning approaches.

Liz Warren Leans on Watchdog Group Filled With Anti-Israel Marxists To Garner Support for Private Equity Crackdown

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) is leaning on the policy expertise of a George Soros-funded nonprofit staffed by self-described communists and anti-Israel radicals in her latest push to crack down on private equity.

The post Liz Warren Leans on Watchdog Group Filled With Anti-Israel Marxists To Garner Support for Private Equity Crackdown appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Party of the People: Biden Schmoozes Billionaires in Manhattan as Border Crisis Worsens

The president is attending a pair of fundraisers in Manhattan on Wednesday evening, just as Title 42 is set to expire. Seriously? Yes.

The post Party of the People: Biden Schmoozes Billionaires in Manhattan as Border Crisis Worsens appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Come Again? 'Ethics-First' Investment Firm Gobbles Up Pornhub

A private equity firm that touts its "ethics-first" investing strategy made a splash this week by bagging the world's most popular porn website. Even more surprising is the fact that both entities have links to the largely irrelevant country of Canada.

The post Come Again? 'Ethics-First' Investment Firm Gobbles Up Pornhub appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

Private Equity Giant Taps Schumer’s Son-in-Law as Lobbyist

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's son-in-law has joined private equity giant Blackstone as a "managing director of government affairs," the latest addition to the New York Democrat's family lobbying empire.

The post Private Equity Giant Taps Schumer’s Son-in-Law as Lobbyist appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.