LyrArc Article Gist
The Federal Reserve Open Market Committe voted 7 to 3 to carry out "Operation Twist." This does not involve printing new money as was done for the $600 billion QE II Fed program. This time the Fed will shift its holdings to hold fewer short-term Treasury bills and notes and increase holdings of Treasury securities with longer maturities. The overall impact would be to increase the average maturity of its Treasury securities portfolo to 8 years from the current 6 years. The idea is to put pressure to reduce long tem rates. The Fed says the impact on short term rates is expected to be small because of its conditional pledge made in August 2011 to hold short term rates near zero until mid-2013. The impact of the Fed's move is likely to be modest considering the fact that the average rate on 30 year fixed rate mortgages is already low. It is at 4.09%, according to the latest Freddie Mac survey.

LyrArc Article Gist
Expectations of lower inflation in the U.S. for 2012. The Commerce Department showed inflation slowing with consumer prices up 2.5% over the prior year in November, down from 2.7% in October and 2.9% in September. The Labor Department's consumer price index went up by 0.8% annual rate in the last 3 months. Increase in labor costs are also mild. Hourly wages of private sector U.S. workers were up 1.8% in November 2011 over the prior year. Commodity demand in emerging markets is slowing with lower growth, which reduces pressure on commodity prices. The consumer price index is expected to rise by 1.2% in 2012, according to J.P. Morgan economists. The Federal Reserve in its recent statement after a Dec. 13 meeting stated it expects inflation at below 2%.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Federal Reserve policies that focus on bringing down the unemployment rate, with special focus on the long term unemployed. The Fed's view is that unemployment is high across all sectors and industries and not based primarily on structural factors such as mismatch in skills. Structural unemployment cannot be reduced through interest rate or monetary policy.

LyrArc Article Gist
Fletcher cites statistics from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that between December 2007 and June 2010, private sector employment in Texas went down by 0.6%. During that period public sector jobs increased by 6.4%. Government employees make up about 17% of the workforce in Texas. The Texas economy gets a large amount of federal money because of military installations and NASA- $227 billion in 2009, according to the Census Bureau. By comparison California received $346 billon in 2009. During the recession period after the global financial crisis of 2008, Texas received $25 billion in stimulus money. Richard Fisher of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank acknowleges the federal money going into Texas, yet he points out the driving force in the economy of Texas is still the private sector. For the private sector there are several advantages to being in Texas. There are lower taxes- no state income tax and lower business taxes. The large supply of land for development and few land-use restrictions make development easier. Corporate efficiency was a key advantage cited by Fluor when it moved from Orange County, California to Texas. A growing energy sector has helped, along with the growing trade with Mexico. The housing regulations in the state have acted as a check on housing prices, and left Texas with less of the detrimental effects of the housing mortgage crisis than the rest of the nation, especially California and Florida. The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, says he is not against all regulation, and the kind of housing regulation in Texas certainly has played a good role for Texas. Perry's tort reforms have reduced the legal burden on business prevalent in the rest of the U.S....

LyrArc Article Gist
Alan Blinder points out that the political partisanship that has emerged in 2010 has not served America well, as it has deprived the government of the fiscal policy tools, which would be more effective than the Fed's only mildly effective tool of buying $100 billion a month of medium and long term Treasury debt. The country he says is tied up in partisan knots that prevents the use of the fiscal policy tools, and leaves the Fed with the choice of doing something only nudging the rates on government and private securites a bit (by 30 basis points for Treasury debt and 15 basis points for private securities as an example, not enough for more than a mild impact on corporate spending). The fiscal policy tools are he says of a wide variety and pack a lot more power, and he cites three as examples: offering significant lasting tax breaks for job creation, large enough to produce results (larger and long term than the HIRE program), government hiring directly onto public payrolls and government paying local and state governments for hiring at the local levels, the government offering to compensate states for a cut in the sales tax for a year to stimulate consumer spending. Would'nt this raise the deficit though? Blinder points out that the deficit problem lies in the future. Right now there is so much slack in the economy, that public spending will not crowd out private spending. And with Treasury rates at an all time low, Treasury can finance the larger deficit in the short term. A depreciation of the dollar or inflation, he says, is not a worry, because now there is worry about deflation, and the USA needs a lower dollar to push exports up and rebalance its economy. This does not slight the deficit issue and the culture of poor budgeting among both parties, as Reagan Budget Director David Stockman pointed out in an op-ed piece, but accomodates the real dangers and opportunities of difficult policy choices. This is why he laments the advertising campaign and public relations campaign against the 2009 stimulus bill, and the expected paralysis of fiscal policy from the extremely partisan 2010 midterm elections, and public opinion consumed by fear of deficits. Leaving the Fed with the unenviable choice of using only mildly effective tools. Other experts and columnists mention the risks associated with the Fed's large scale purchase of securities, if this leads to another asset bubble and subsequent collapse, and another bailout needed for financial institutions. Peter Eavis in one column in the WSJ points to the lack of effectiveness of the first round of quantitative easing of $1.7 trillion. And Kelly Evans, in the WSJ, points to the risks of "bad" inflation, if another round of quantitative easing by the Fed leads to increases in the price of commodities such as oil and food (such inflation falling heaviest on lower income households).The US Financial Regulatory Reform bill has received low grades, and recent standards for reserve capital in worldwide banking reforms are stretched out over a long period, leaving fragility in the economic system, if something were to go wrong....

LyrArc Article Gist
By July 2013 only about 40% of the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation rules were completed, 60% of deadlines were missed, according to law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP. A singular aspect of the Dodd-Frank legislation was that rule making was left to regulators in different agencies and open to lobbying by the financial industry. This has the effect of delaying the rule making until a consensus is reached, diluting some of the original intent as financial firms jockey for advantage, and making it voluminous in many cases because of the wording designed to achieve consensus and account for objections by various interests. Reform legislators such as Barney Frank openly said they had no interest in learning enough about the financial industry to do the rule making, and may have left an excessive amount of the rule making to regulators in the future. A consumer protection agency was established under the new law and derivatives are required to be traded on exchanges. The Volcker Rule to separate investment banking from deposit taking and a requirement that banks hold onto a portion of mortgage securities marketed are not completed. The S.E.C. has to write the rule on how much money brokerages must set aside for losses on swap trades. Another bubble in financial markets would leave the U.S. and European economies vulnerable to problems similiar to the global financial crisis of 2008, which is why the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and the European regulatory authorites are requiring large banks to set aside more capital reserves. The S.E.C. under its new chief is also taking a more active role in overseeing the banks for violations of securities laws, including a series of actions taken against JP Morgan Chase bank in 2013. This has a deterrent effect as the huge monetary easing by the U.S. Federal Reserve to reduce unemployment also creates bubble conditions in financial markets, according to Fed governor, Jeremy Stein. Former FDIC chief, Sheila Bair, says the lack of leadership in this area is simply astonishing....

LyrArc Article Gist
The tough job President Obama faces as he faces opposition from politicians who have interests to protect, and healthcare businesses with interests to protect. The President has to come up with a plan that is deficit neutral, because financial markets could see a healthcare bill that further widens the deficit as a signal for higher interest rates that would deepen the recession. At the same time each of the three sources of revenue puts him at loggerheads with political leaders in Congress or groups with interests to protect. Limiting income tax deductions for high earners could raise $267 billion in 10 years. It would require taxpayers in the top tax brackets deduct their mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations, at the 28% tax rate instead of the 33% and 35% tax rates. The opposition is with democratic leaders that it would hurt charities, universities that depend on tax deductible donations, and taxpayers in high tax cities like New York city that are the home base of Democratic leaders. Yet only 1.4% of households would be affected says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, says charitable giving would decrease by 2%. The other opposition on this comes from the preference of Senators Baucus and Grassley, who head the Senate Finance Committee, for tax increases or cost savings to come from the health sector. Specifically they want to see the value of workers' employer provided health benefits subject to income taxes. It is a situation in which every sensible person admits the need for healthcare reform and would see the current pace of healthcare costs as unsustainable and dangerous; and after that will just go back to his group and try to preserve as much of the status quo as possible, so as not to disturb by much the benefits or compensation they have secured from the system over the years. Then there are political leaders in Congress with their own preferences, and Congressmen who are the subject of heavy lobbying by these interests. The administration and the Presidents job is to navigate this stream with a workable deficit neutral plan, without any requirement for any group to make sacrifices, and in some situations even small sacrifices for the public interest. Would charitable institutions be hurt that much, what if charitable institutions were exempted, why would other interests the try to obtain the same exemption. Its like the unions trying to keep the old unsustainable goldplated healthcare and other benefits at GM even as the ship was going down. Taxing employer provided employee health benefits as income would raise $2.5 trillion over a decade. The opposition here is from unions which are a force in the Democratic party and which count tax free health benefits as a legacy of the labor movement. Employer provided health insurance covers 160 million American employed and their dependents under the age of 65, so it has a wide impact. Yet most economists favor ending the tax break. They say it mainly goes to upper income taxpayers, and discourages cost consciousness among consumers of health care, thus encouraging excessive spending and surging health care costs. Senior Obama advisors, Peter Orszag, the budget director, and economist Jason Furman favor this approach. So do Republicans in Congress. Senators Baucus and Grassley are not asking for the complete removal of the tax break, what they want to see is capping the value of benefits that go untaxed. If the tax-free limit is $13,000, a policy worth $15,000 would pay income taxes on $2000. A third spource is to spend less on Medicare. About two thirds of the $948 billion in savings Mr Obama has proposed over 10 years comes from a number of reductions in Medicare spending. $177 billion comes from insurance companies bidding for government reimbursements for offering private plans to seniors. $106 billion comes from cutting the subsidies to hospitals serving the uninsured as universal coverage should remove this need. And $110 billion in reduced payments to hospitals and doctors because of productivity gains. A range of industries insurance companies, hospitals, doctors drugmakers, nursing homes, home health care companies and medical device makers, all stand to lose from reduced payments from Medicare and Medicaid. And these groups with interests to protect are another factor in this process of working out a healthcare plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jim Lehrer of PBS deserves a lot of credit for the remarkable way in which he handled the new format of 15 minute segments designed to draw out the distinctions between the candidates in the first 2012 U.S. presidential television debate.

LyrArc Article Gist
The US is facing a new pattern of demographic changes and their impact on Medicare and Social Security programs. The number of people on Medicare will grow in 2 decades, 2010- 2030, from 47 million to 80 million for Medicare, and from 44 million to 73 million for Social Security, according to this estimate. The workforce will grow more slowly and the tax base wiill shrink accordingly during this period. This pending worker-pensioner imbalance and the jump in the cost of the bill for Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the federal health benefit for poor people, create a major problem for the US. At the same time the group of people over 65 will rise in these 2 decades from 17% of the voting age population to 26%. This group and the people who expect to soon join this group will resist any changes to Medicare or Social Security programs, making it that much harder for the political process to tackle these issues to make the programs sustainable in the long run.

LyrArc Article Gist
Evidence of the multicultural society that the U.S. is becoming is shown in Census Bureau information showing that 50.4% of children under the age of 1 year were Hispanic, black, Asian American or other minority groups. This is up from 49.5% in April 2010 census information. A striking change is that the white population is growing older and the Hispanic population is much younger as a whole. Today minorities are about 37% of the population in the U.S., with the District of Columbia, California, Hawaii, New Mexico and Texas, having minority population in the majority. The median age for white non-Hispanic people is 42 compared to 28 for Hispanics, and early 30's for Asians and Blacks. The baby boom of minority children is also because the number of white women in their 20's and 30's has declined over time as the White non-Hispanic population has aged. Another change that is being seen is that immigration from Mexico has declined to the point where some Hispanics are going back to Mexico. William Frey, a demographer from the Brookings Institution says immmigrants will continue coming from other parts of the world when the economy recovers. The timing for immigration say demographers is good because without the immigrants the U.S. would have an aging society like that in Japan....