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 Single issue engagement is obsolete in the 21st century in dealing with global partners or rivals, or countries with aspects of both....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
The results of the February 24, 2011, CBS/New York Times poll show strong support for public workers in schools, firefighters, police and other functions. On collective bargaining 60% opposes weakening the bargaining rights of public workers, only 33% support it. On reducing the benefits and pay of public workers to reduce deficits, 56% opposed cutting pay or benefits, only 37% support it. Are public workers overpaid or have overly generous health and pension benefits. On this issue 61% -including over half of Republicans- say the salaries of public workers were either "about right" or "too low" for the work they do. So how are states to reduce their deficits? The people polled say they prefer tax increases over benefit cuts for public employees- only 22% chose to reduce the benefits of public employees, 40% said they would increase taxes, 20% said they would cut financing for roads, only 3% said they would cut financing for education. How this breaks down in politcal groups. 71% of Democrats opposed weakening collective bargaining rights, the opposition was also strong from Independents with 62% of Independents opposing weakening of collective bargaining rights. Followup interviews showed independents saying the public workers work hard and still struggle to have a home, saving for retirement, and sending their kids to college, with both spouses generally having to work, which is why they oppose weakening collective bargaining rights. Which segment of the populations support cutting pay and benefits of public workers? The one income group that showed support for cutting pay and benefits- those earning over $100,000 a year! There 45% said they favored cutting pay and benefits, even here 49% opposed it. On the intentions of the governors and state legislators trying to cut pay or benefits of public workers- 45% said they did this to cut the deficits, and as many as 41% said the saw this as an effort to weaken unions. Which takes one to the last question, so how are unions perceived in the U.S. in 2011? A far smaller number of people, 37% saw unions as having "too much influence" on American life and politics vs. 48% who said that unions had the "right amount" or "too little" influence....

LyrArc Article Gist
The failure of the economics profession to produce any red flags for this economic crisis, and the failure of economists to come to any consensus on what works to come out of this crisis, along with the huge confidence with which the economics profession displayed as the economy sailed along in most of the post war years, is one of the very noticeable things as one reflects on what has happened. Journalists like Peter Coy at BW who wrote this report followed the housing market for BW and raised red flags long before the crisis hit, just by looking at the facts. So its clear that looking at the facts through the lens of a particular theory of economics, or the lens of some ideological bias, or the lens of triumphalism, can handicap economists. There are economists who believe in the stimulus, and economists who don't believe in a stimulus, and others who think the economy reaches equilibrium of itself if left alone, and economists who believe in tax cuts. Were it not for the fact that the risks in a time like this are really great in depending on one or the other for advice if things don't work out the way they think, this would not be such a big issue. But a lot hangs inthe balance. Which is why decisions are based on what is actually happening on the ground, and by getting a good sense of that, and a grasp of real conditions, and getting agood sense of what will work in that particular situation, and not just hoping that things will work out according to some theory or conviction in the mind. And those who execute or manage the economy instead of teaching a class, have to be aware of the great responsibility for the lives of millions of people here and in poor countries around the globe, whose lives and the lives of their children, nutrition, health and education depend on their decisions, not just when they are in office but years after they have left. And for this reason exercize needed caution....

LyrArc Article Gist
Prime minister Matteo Renzi focussed on some critical aspects of how other Europeans see the negotiations in the Greece bailout in June 2015. Considering that the EU had relaxed conditions for the surplus, a critical condition for reducing austerity programs in Greece and focussing on reforms, and considering the high unemployment not insisted on further cuts to the public sector employees, the conditions put forward focussing on reforms such as collection of taxes are seen as essental by other eurozone countries, including Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy. Renzi told II Sole 24 Ore- "The point is that Greece may get different conditions, but it has to abide by the rules. It's not the case that we have taken early retiremnt pensions away from the people of Italy just to allow the Greeks to have them! We have brought in labor reform, but it is not the case that, with our money, a number of Greek shipowners can continue not to pay taxes.. I could go on." If he went on he would cite the tax collection laws and methods in Italy which were changed under prime minister Monti to tackle tax evasion in Italy, with no effort to collect the $11 billion in estimated taxes that are not collected in Greece. Italy banned cash payment above 1000 euros and started a cross referencing initiative to tackle tax evasion under premier Monti. Greece took up tax evasion legislation in 2010 in parliament but opposition from many groups led to no action. In 2012 Labor minister Elsa Fornero broke down in tears as she described raising the retirement age for women to 66 in the private sector from 60, saying this was to prevent "collective impoverishment." Italy lacks childcare and older women help with childcare for grandchildren. Renzi was probably thinking of these changes in Italy. He went on to say- " If there is a mass get-out clause over the rules, what will happen in Spain in October? And in France in a year and half? It is one thing to ask for flexibility amid abidance by the rules. It is another thing to think that one is the craftiest of them all, in other words to be the that does not abide by the rules. We want them to save Greece. But the people of Greece also have to want that." On tax evasion and other issues for long term financial health Greece is seen as not following basic financial rules for sustaining the euro....

LyrArc Article Gist
Shear of the NYT says president Trump is taking risks of losing support from low income people who supported him in the presidential election by making aggressive cuts in programs that help low income people. In his first budget plan deep cuts to social programs and increase of 10% in defense spending of $54 billion is planned. The new health care plan of the Republicans House and Speaker Ryan is seen by the Congressional Budget Office as increasing uninsured people by 14 million. Trump has left Social Security intact, but he sees other cuts as cuts to the "administrative state' and overreach on entitlements. The budget plan is titled "America First," and shrinks foreign aid, cuts state department budget by about a third, and cuts funding to PBS, other agencies, and cuts social program spending.

LyrArc Article Gist
Martin Feldstein renews his call for new policies that channel significant government aid to homeowners under water. He says this is the only way to stem the decline in home prices. Letting the forest fire of foreclosures burn itself out is simply not an option, as it would only damage the economy further.

LyrArc Article Gist
The head of the Germany Program at Institut Montaigne in Paris, France, Robinet Borgomano looks at the renewal of German society under the ideas of "respect" put forward by Olaf Scholz of the SPD party. What does Olaf Scholz see as the main issue of our time? - Borgomano says it is the disintegration of European and American societies under the combined effects of technological progress and globalization. Where does Scholz get his ideas of "respect" for workers and families? Isn't Mr. Biden sharing the same ideas in the US? The SPD party got its start at the Bad Godesberg Convention in 1959 when it embraced the idea of a social market economy as a party of the people. Wily Brandt as chancellor from 1969 to 1974, whose personal struggle against the Germany of World War II was based in the Nordic countries, embodies best this renewal aspect of the SPD. Scholz sees his role as renewal of Germany, Europe, hand in hand with Mr. Biden's renewal efforts in the US on the same basic ideas of respect of the dignity of the worker and families that in Germany were seen with Wily Brandt and in the US with Harry Truman who followed FDR. Scholz rejects the overemphasis on the of merit in German society, European society, or American society, in the way it has taken shape in the last fifty years. Scholz cites Michael Sandel's Essay "The Tyranny of Merit" rejcting it because it makes a case for inequality based on merit, on capital allocation on an implied idea of merit of free markets managed in damaging ways for personal interest. It is wrong because it robs the worker and families of the basic dignity that is the right of every individual and of every person. It is wrong because it makes a false justification for growing inequality, and makes those who do not succeed feel that it is their fault. Meritocratic elites have made the idea that those who work hard and play by the rules get all the benefits and wealth even if the rules were first set in a way that benefits them alone. When these rules become implicit they are rarely questioned as happened in the period after 2000. It is not just in Europe and America that this happens, and not just in the 20th century.  Strange but true- During the 1850's in the heyday of industrialization in Britain the Ethnological Society of Britain justified the inequality between the British and Indians in the British Empire by saying Indians were inferior in exams and did not have the motivation or the aptitude and energy to excel in the way British students did. Dadabhai Naoroji, the first Indian member of the British parliament in Mr. Gladstone's Liberals singlehandedly took up the job Sandel and Scholz and Mr. Biden are taking on today to restore the respect of workers, farmers, and families in America and Europe and in all parts of the world. Sandel goes on to say what Scholz has heard clearly- "the parties that made the offer of upward mobility to workers and families have missed the insult implicit in it to a large number of working people." In a way it is going back to the roots, to the founding fathers in America who said in the 18th century that "all men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," -nothing less.   ...

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
Kathleen Sebelius, a former Governor of Kansas, pushed forward implementation of the Obama Healthcare Law as U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary, 2008-2014. She resigned in 2014 after IT problems made it difficult to use the government's Healthcare.gov website in 2013.

LyrArc Article Gist
With majorities in both houses of parliament Lopez Obrador now has the mandate to come up with an independent position for Mexico on issues of NAFTA negotiation, and social programs to lift Mexico's poor and working class, come up with a new way to reduce violence and corruption in society.  Stakes are large in the relationship with the U.S. Mexico exported $340 billion of products to the U.S. and imported $276 billion in goods. The team of Mr. Obrador sees the need to plan conversations with the U.S. carefully recognizing that Mr. Trump is not a lunatic, but a man with a political plan, says Marcelo Ebard, a top adviser to Obrador. On migrants even as Mexico has detained 76,000 central American migrants Lopez Obrador sees Mexico as a nation of refuge, and says migrants rights must be respected. On NAFTA Obrador supports the current negotiations and will have his advisers present at the negotiations. Obrador says Mexico is a country with a lot of natural resources and wealth, so that "the demise of the existing NAFTA will not be fatal for Mexicans." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The stark differences in the policy positions of the two major parties in the U.S. seen emerging in the television debates. Trump vocal on immigration calling for large deportations. Sanders and Clinton vocal on the struggles of the middle class and white working class.

LyrArc Article Gist
CreditSights, a New York research firm says about $33 billion in losses from home equity loans will hit the five largest banks in the latter part of 2010, an amount equal to what they expect in earnings for 2010. This would have an adverse effect on the banks and has the potential to stall the economic recovery.

LyrArc Article Gist
Feldstein says that the $700 billion plan to buy impaired assets will not prevent an overshooting downward in house prices, as more people have negative equity in their homes, rising to 40% of all mortgages at some point; and leading to a cycle of foreclosure and further price declines. This will only decrease the value of the mortgage securities that Treasury seeks to take off the hands of banks. And without direct government help in form of lowcost loans, say 2%, the cost of capital for the government, for 20% of the loan upto $80,000; more and more homeowners will have negative equity in their homes. This will lead to more foreclosures as housing loans are not full recourse, so that only the house is lost and the homeowner can move to an apartment and carry on from there. Thw size of this program would be $1 trillion but it gives the government income from the loans made and these would be full recourse loans so the taxpayer is protected. In Feldstein's view the current plan does not address declining house prices which is the root of the problem. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Alan Blinder, Princeton University professor and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, says the biggest reason for the growing deficit in the years out to 2040 is because of increases in health care spending. Its not that there is runaway spending in other areas. He cites CBO projections that show other costs stable relative to GDP from 2015 to 2035 and declining. This is why healthcare spending is at the heart of the problem. And why tackling the deficit has a lot to do with reducing healthcare cost increases.

LyrArc Article Gist
A advisor to U.S. president Obama lists the gains in U.S. healthcare made by March 2014, after the passing of the Affordable Care Act or Obama healthcare law. He cites on access to care the reduction of the percentage of uninsured Americans from 18% in the middle of 2013 to 15.9% in the first quarter of 2014, according to a Gallup poll.