LyrArc Article Gist
A critical part of the Affordable Care Act is the setup of marketplaces or exchanges to let people without insurance buy individual health plans. Some states setup their own exchanges, and some states let the federal government step in and run them. To help the lower middle class and poor the Act provides health subsidies to buy insurance in the exchanges, and 85% of customers in the exchanges qualify for this benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in 2015, compared to a tight vote in 2012 on the Affordable Care Act, to maintain the health subsidies. Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them." Justice Scalia dissented calling it "interpretive jiggery-pokery." Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. dissented. Voting in favor were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Justice Kennedy dissented in the 2000 case. The challengers petition to the courts was based on a reading of phrases in the Affordable Act which had not occurred to the writers of the law. The reading suggests only people enrolled in state setup exchanges are eligible for subsidies. If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs the 6.4 million Americans who are enrolled in the federal exchanges would lose the subsidies provided under the law and lose health insurance. And the economic foundations of the Affordable Act would be undermined with insurance companies required to provide insurance to all regardless of pre-existing conditions and subsidies removed, leaving the companies with sicker pool of customers resulting in destabilizing the exchanges and higher premiums. The court ruled in favor of an interpretation that is compatible with the whole law and the intentions of the statute to help the middle class and the poor buy health insurance. The chaos in the insurance markets that would result in going with the plaintiffs because of a careless writing of a phrase, was uppermost in the majority's mind. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized this, saying- "The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners' interpretation, because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange and likely create the very 'death spirals' that Congress designed the act to avoid." This case originated with 4 plaintiffs from Virginia who challenged the IRS regulation that said subsidies were allowed regardless of whether the exchanges were run by the state or the federal government, arguing that this was at odds with the particular phrase in the law that was ambiguous about federal exchanges eligibility for health subsidies. Judge Roger Gregory of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virgina, ruled that the phrase was indeed ambiguous, but the IRS was owed deference in its opinion. Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that this was not a case for the IRS, saying "it is instead our task to determine the correct reading." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Speaker Boehner's difficulties getting Republican votes in the U.S. House of Representatives. 151 Congressmen and majority leader Cantor voted against the McConnell-Biden fiscal cliff agreement of Jan. 1, 2013.

LyrArc Article Gist
Serious problem of rapid premium increases for middle class people not eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Insurance companies have increased premiums rapidly to pay for the cost of treating people with previous conditions and the uninsured, as well as population with poor health conditions.

LyrArc Article Gist
Polly Lower quit her job to take care of her granddaughter, and Eddie Gonzalez-Novoa quit a $88,000 job to help a nephew who is a cancer survivor setup his startup video-gaming and social media site, and provide childcare for his granddaughter. They are 2 examples of the equivalent of 2.5 million workimg people the Congressional Budget Office estimates will reduce hours or quit jobs and take the government subsidies to lower income earners for healthcare insurance in the U.S.

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ looks at the 75 years of the US Saudi Arabia relationship that started when US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt met Saudi king Ibn Saud at Bitter Creek, Egypt, on a US Navy destroyer ship in 1945. It has gone through many phases over this period and mainly involved the Saudi kingdom maintaining its supply of oil to the US and Western Europe. This relationship went through an oil embargo during tense periods of Israeli Palestine conflict as in 1983 with an oil embargo that pushed up oil prices. What is different this time is the situation in Yemen where Iranian supported Houthi rebels near the border with Saudi Arabia are engaged in a conflict with the Saudis. Democratic administrations under first Obama and Biden today support reaching a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons development and limit US military support for the war in Yemen. The Saudis for their part are not keen on a regional war and turned down efforts by president Trump to respond to attacks from Yemen. Mr. Biden's envoy has arranged for a deal to reduce tensions between the Houthis in Yemen and Saudis. The diplomatic impasse in relations stems from the Kashoggi incident and president Biden's concern for the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. Other factors making relations difficult are the economic interests of the two countries diverging. The relationship Roosevelt started in 1945 has changed in its fundamental character. Oil supplies for imports into the US is no longer a factor for the US which was the original interest of president Roosevelt in Saudi Arabia. This changed by 2015 as the US fracking industry enabled US to become self sufficient in oil and able to supply LNG to western Europe. Instead of the US Saudi oil now goes to China. Russian oil also goes to China as its industry expanded with American investment. This has led to a new Saudi relationship with China which has changed the dynamic of the American Saudi relationship. Some of the new aspects of this can also be seen in Saudi relationship with South Asia. Saudi ties have increased with India and India in 2021 was the first country to provide vaccine supplies to Saudi Arabia. Saudis, Qatar, United Arab Emirates are building relationships with India as a close neighbor in the region. Relationships are in some ways improving in the Asian region compared to the period when oil was simply exchanged as a commodity for defense supplies from the US without regard to cultural, educational and other changes in Saudi society. In a sense US and Western Europe paid little attention to the huge democracy of over 1 billion people right in the middle of Asia and followed policies that led to major investments in China and little or no investment in India, and without realizing it followed a policy that the British had pursued in the British Empire of treating different communities and religions as separate as opposed to one community of people in South Asia that were engaged in modernizing, building infrastructure and changing centuries old ways of living. The British Empire was sustained by this kind of thinking, and as long as Indians were complacent and lacked the will to make their aspirations for a better life and infrastructure for modernization this kind of thinking prevailed. The economic crises in Asia have reinforced the idea that there is one community entirely focused on development and modernization in South Asia. The people in South Asia care most about the cost of living and the infrastructure and services for the quality of life they live and their children can aspire for- same in European Union that chose the Greens and chancellor Scholz, and same in the US that chose president Biden to invest infrastructure and people, the same in China and the same in India and the rest of Asia. This is the situation that the US and Britain, and the European Union are now beginning to learn and adapt to that is a constructive aspect of these changes to rebuild the connections and supply chains that were sorely neglected before now. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ committed to orthodox economic theory thinks of tariffs as tariffs such as Smoot Hawley from the 30's. This is why it is not true- It is about fentanyl flows that have led to 490,000 deaths over 12 years in the US and few in the US like to talk about it. Smoot Hawley had nothing to do with fentanyl, drugs trafficking and migrant trafficking that every nation not only has a right but a No.1 responsibility to its citizens to keep its neighborhoods and its children in neighborhoods safe. Smoot and Hawley were US Senators and US Congress was isolationist in mood. Their grasp of the world trading system was meager and they stepped in at a time when the world had economically not recovered from World War I, and the French against US General Pershing's advice had set the most punitive arrangement in Germany that crushed Germany after an armistice Pershing opposed that left the Kaiser's political structures intact. Tariffs is not DJT's idea. It is the solid experience of Deputy US Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer under Reagan who conducted negotiations with the Japanese who stalled and stalled Lighthizer says, let negotiations drag on into endless nights, and Lighthizer and his team stood firm. The relentless Japanese relented and Lighthizer secured the agreements that ended this phase of trade relations in the 1980's. Lighthizer was Trade Representative in the DJT first term 2016-2020 and launched the negotiations with China. This is now 8 years since 2016 and 2016 itself was 35 years after Lighthizer negotiated with the Japanese. Today's US Trade Representative is Jamieson who was Deputy Trade Representative under Lighthizer in 2016. Each detail is carefully thought through to bring it to a fair conclusion in the interests of the world and the US. Information traveled slowly GM could not tell at any time how many cars were in inventory on its lots in 1920's. US lacked basic infrastructure for government that FDR and Labor Secretary added firt in New York in the 1930's and which was transferred to 50 states by 1940's. Today information is quickly at fingertips and consultation processes are built in between industry and government at all levels. A lot of information is carefully evaluated. USTR as DJT showed, the major study of USTR Office in the Rose Garden on April 2, 2025, has all trade barriers carefully analyzed in minute details for every country. And is working on this for 40 years. There isn't even a slightest  comparison between this and the Smoot Hawley crowd in the 1920's.  The goal not to beat anybody. Just to set the goal of a level playing field for world trade. That is the foundation of trade that is fair and respected, and is a win-win for all. WTO's basic foundation No. 1 principle is a level playing field. It is just that this was a kind of Marshall Plan for Asia of the US to let poor countries such as Japan war wrecked in 1950, and China colonial power wrecked by first Britain then Japan struggling and poor in 1990's, giving them some time to rebuild by ignoring unfair barriers to trade for 10-15 years 2005 for China. Barriers that never got dismantled and technology that leaked from the US 2005-2016 under the Obama administration. Smoot Hawley was not about the US Navy building its own ships and US shipyards in the 1920's. In 2025 US shipbuilding industry is stolen, this is why the words used "pillaged" "looted" were used in the Rose Garden. Little by little American private enterprise capitalism was superseded by a new form of capitalism in Japan then in China that combined state capitalism with private enterprise capitalism. This then was the threat America faced, and needed to redouble its energies and seek fair play.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Mike Flynn, who briefly held the position of National Security Adviser before resigning, tells the FBI and Congressional officials that he is willing to be interviewed if he is given immunity for prosecution. Flynn, a former general, resigned after accepting that he misled White House officials about the phone conversations with the Russian ambassador. Also an issue and seen as improper is that Flynn was paid for speeches by Russia's state sponsored network RT just before becoming an adviser to the Trump campaign, according to documents given to a congressional oversight committee.

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the Hindusthan Times on president Trump's 25% steel tariff on steel imports focuses on the trade deficit with China of $375 billion in 2017. It shows the trade deficit for the month of February 2018 citing data from China as growing rapidly in 2018 over the prior year by 45%, even as imports went up only by 6.3%. In looking at coverage in the U.S. on this topic many of the reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times were critical of the tariff without mentioning the size of the trade surplus of China. Hardly any reports mentioned the growth by 45% in the February 2018 trade surplus of China with the U.S. over the prior year.  This report cites a tweet by president Trump that China was asked to come up with a plan to reduce its trade surplus by $1 billion in 2018, only 0.27% of the trade surplus, which looks strange as this would do little to change the trading relationship except that it puts pressure on China to change the direction of the surplus that is growing because of the strengthening dollar and the growth in the U.S.  This suggests that even with the 25% steel tariff America's basic problem of the imbalance in trading relationship with China will continue.  The headlines critical of Trump for starting a trade war therefore look strange in this context and show how little this subject is understood or debated with facts. Even today textbook economics principles are cited after two decades of hollowing out of industry in the midwestern U.S. and in Ontario, Canada. This led to public sentiment shift electing a liberal Justin Trudeau in Canada, and an outsider real estate businessman Donald Trump in the U.S.  For Democrats in the U.S. the support of marginal additional gains in trade with president Obama's push for another free trade agreement in the TPP may have cost them theiir working class base and the election.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Chuck Hagel on the need to bring in more countries to handle difficult situations such as the one the US faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says thats why the world now has a G20 and not a G8. No country can face these situations alone especially when there is a mutual interest of many countries in these situations. He calls it a 20th century reaction to 21st century realities. He says the 2 wars cost more than a trillion dollars. One sees a new respect for international institutions such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, and GATT renamed WTO, even with Republicans. Chuck Hagel's point makes a lot of sense and is generally accepted in people's understanding of the situation from the Defence Department to the Administration, and among respected politicians. It is putting it onto practice that is the hard part. As Hagel puts it, it is important to remember what Lyndon Johnson told Senatior Russell, that he knew the Vietnam war could not be won, and yet he did not want to pull out and be the first American President to lose a war. This is a contradiction because if it can't be won its going to be lost under the next President or the one after that, in this case Gerald Ford. Hagel says it not ours to win and lose. Here he points to the interconnectedness and shared interests of all nations. Every great threat to the U.S., whether it is economic, terrorism, nuclear weapons proliferation, health pandemics, environmental degradation, energy or water and food shortages, is also a threat to global partners ansd rivals. So its wrong to view engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan through the lens that says its about winning or losing. And he asks win what? Too many cultural, ethnic and religious dynamics are involved for any one nation to control. Hagel concludes by saying that the US, the Defense Department, the Obama administration, must get this right, as it affects the global architecture for the next generation. Fresh thinking is needed. Single issue engagement is obsolete in the 21st century in dealing with global partners or rivals, or countries with aspects of both....

LyrArc Article Gist
Mead points out that the world with an effective U.S. leadership based on democracy and the values we cherish is needed now more than ever, after the failures of the Bush and Obama administrations to provide the kind of balanced leadership all Americans can stand behind. A world without an effective and enlightened leadership from the U.S, is one in which the world could fall apart in regional rivalry, one in which the hundreds of millions of people in the poorer parts of India, China, Russia, Brazil, and other developing countries of the world, will have less opportunity to meet their aspirations for a better life. This is because a focus on development requires less regional rivalry and because serious missteps can reverse in a few years decades of economic progress as shown in the 2008 global financial crisis. More so because we live in an increasingly interdependent global economy. It is also the kind of world where suppression of freedoms and suppression of the opposition as in China and Russia, provides a wrong kind of message, a world in which we or our children would not want to live in. Russia, India and China, are too driven by rivalry and lack the deep experience to go it alone, multipolar is more likely to end up being multipolar rivalry leading to a race to the bottom, which would be bad for all, especially for the poor in Asia and the developing world. The 2008 crisis showed what some serious economic mistakes could do to employment and incomes in the world with output dropping by a third in most places. Political missteps could lead to a slippery slope of this magnitude but more difficult to correct. Greater participation in the political process and more enlightened leadership is needed in all countries to allow many voices and greater interaction across boundaries, focussing on the dangers of such multipolar rivalries. The world of the G-7 is already moving to the G-20 where many voices are heard and serious discussion of differences takes place, but participatory is different from multipolar....

LyrArc Article Gist
Some of the roots of the Alawite role in Syria go back to the colonial period. Alawites are a Muslim sect living in the coastal mountainous region of Syria in towns such as Tartus, Latakia and in the mountains. The French setup a Alawite state in 1924-1936 before it was merged with the rest of Syria. The Russians have set up a small naval base in Tartus. As the Free Syrian Army reaches Damascus and suburbs the Assad regime is expected to move to Tartus and the coastal region and mountains. This account by NYT reporters from the area reveal the unreal nature of the conflict and the Assad regime. The seaside town of Tartus swells with people fleeing Damascus and other cities, with people from the Assad regime or allied to it, and the real estate market booms. During the same week other accounts in the NYT reported accounts of cluster bombs being used against civilians by the Assad regime. The civil war brought artillery attacks and air raids by the predominantly Alawite Assad military regime on mostly Sunni civilian populations thorough most of 2012. The Russians, the Assad military and public officials, living what may be the last weeks of this civil war as it takes on a sectarian nature, in some kind of bubble. From the international community only France, Turkey, Britain, and Egypt may retain credibility in Syria after the passive role of the U.S. under president Obama to the struggle for freedom in Syria. The U.S. Democratic administration's distaste for engagements overseas may have carried it to the point of standing by as artillery was turned against a civilian population. France and Britain's role in the Libyan people's struggle, and its lower profile assistance to the freedom struggle in Syria compared to the earlier effort under president Sarkozy, still creates a measure of respect. A no fly zone by the U.S. would have prevented the destruction to civilian population that occurred and salvaged U.S. respect, at very little cost relative to the one trillion dollars spent in Iraq and Afghanistan....

LyrArc Article Gist
Chrysler's net income increased in 2012 to $1.67 billion, up from the $183 million in 2011. Revenue was $65.8 billion in 2012, increasing 19.6% over $55 billion in 2011. To see what impact taking ownership stake in Chrysler over four years has accomplished for Fiat one has to consider the losses Fiat would suffer without Chrysler. In France the lack of a foreign presence required Peugeot Citroen to look for government aid. Even the initial investment in Chrysler by Fiat made use of the $2 billion in a breakup fee for an agreement Fiat signed with GM before 2007. Showing the huge dividends Fiat has gained from the new management team installed at Fiat in the last decade. This makeover of Fiat was done using younger managers under an executive from outside the auto industry. That alone would have not saved Fiat, leveraging the skills at Chrysler was a crucial opportunity. Fiat now has a 58.5% stake in Chrysler. Taken alone Fiat would lose $1.04 billion euros or $1.4 billion in 2012, and would need government aid, even after the turnaround under Marchionne, showing how crucial taking the initiative to make the early investment in Chrysler was to saving Fiat. Sensing this opportunity when first Daimler and then Cerberus private equity failed with Chrysler, taking advantage of the government aid to Chrysler after the 2008 financial crisis, and creating a partnership with the government on issues such as fuel efficiency, may be the biggest achievements of Marchionne and his team of managers. Sensing the opportunity to get geographical diversification by taking on Chrysler separated Fiat from Peugeot Citroen, which lacked this diversification and had to turn to the French government for aid. Taking on the Chrysler venture, sensing the timing and balancing the risk with management knowhow, securing the right kind of deal with the U.S. government to reduce risks in 2008, turning Fiat technology in small cars into a saleable asset, and managing the relationship with the Obama administration, separates Marchionne and his team from a management team that would have seen its role in a purely Italian turnaround which would have not lasted. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A reminder from a veteran of investing about the enthusiasm and euphoria of Mr. Market, the term Benjamin Graham, author of the Intelligent Investor, used to describe the collective emotions of the people in the market during times of overoptimism when prices of shares have overextended and are overpriced. Graham warned of Mr Market in 1945, 1959, and in 1971, each time the market swooned and faltered. Zweig of the WSJ, points out data from Robert Shiller of Yale, the price/earnings ratio of the S&P 500 index jumping from 13.1 to 15.5 since March 2009, in 3 months. Ofcourse, this required aspecial disposition. Being well read and immersed in literature, mathematics and philosophy, helps to view things "from the standpoint of eternity, rather than day to day." And having a sense of detachment, a "certain aloofness," and "unruffled serenity." Graham mentions his internal equipment, his "embracing stoicism as a gospel sent to him from heaven." So Zweig again reminds investors on behalf of Graham as it were, and cautions about the mood swings ocurring lately from despair to a sudden optimism, which he describes as an insecure and desperate need to believe that things have taken a new turn when on closer examination things have only been papered over. Actually when one looks closely the credit tightening has eased by resolute action from the Fed and the Treasury and the Obama administration. But the underlying problem behind toxic mortgage securities remains at large. Private equity is being relied on to fix this problem in agovernment private partnership but no sigificant dent has been made in the toxic securities. Banks have made profits for one quarter, the outlook has improved and bank stock prices got a boost, but underlying problems remain. The loss in GDP this first quarter of 2009 compared to the prior year is 6% which is much better than the the 15-16 % drop in Germany and Japan, and 21% in Mexico. And the steep drops in unemployment are moderating. But large numbers of foreclosures continue with no dent in this in sight. And stimulus expenditures are only slowly trickling through, see the link to this. And the situation can only be described as improving but fragile....

LyrArc Article Gist
Economists at the IMF estimate that the public debt of the leading 10 industrialized countries would reach 114% of GDP by 2014, from 78% today. The governments then owe about $50,000 for each person in the country. Unlike World War II this situation is not temporary, because of the pension and health care costs of a population that is getting older. So what is to be done? Without the stimulus, the deep and prolonged recession would lead to greater damage to the finances of these countries. But continued in this manner the government would crowd out private investment and lead to lower economic growth. In some countries, Greece, Ireland, Italy Portugal and Spain it might lead to default, in other countries the real cost of the debt may be reduced through inflation. In the USA yields on 10 year Treasuries reached about 4% on June 10th, in December it was about 2%, a consequence of the economic recovery. If interest rates are allowed to rise too fast, it might abort the economic recovery. A rise in taxes is also not the answer, because in Europe the taxes are already at 40%, in America they are around 30%. But raising consumption taxes at the time when the economy was fragile, aborted a recovery in Japan during Japan's earlier crisis decade. A caution signal that says fiscal tightening can backfire, especially some years after a banking crisis when things are still in a weak condition. Some steps that can be taken are raising the retirement age, which would cut pension costs as people work longer and would boost tax revenues, and eliminating the tax deduction for home mortgage payments in the US. Its important to build credibility that the government and the legislative bodies are serious about controlling the finances and acting with prudence. In America wasteful health care spending is a priority, as this would reduce the burden on public finances considerably , and should be as much of a priority for the new Obama administration, as providing universal health care. With today's finances its not something that can be put off....