LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump's 2017 budget is an effort to reshape spending priorities by the Republican party. Apart from Medicare and Social Security all other entitlement programs from the days of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society are subject to cuts. Deep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, including introducing work requirements. The philosophy behind it is that compassion will now be measured not by how large these programs are but by how much the government can get people "off these programs and back in charge of their lives,"  according to Budget Director Mulvaney.  The cuts are $616 billion to Medicaid and Children's Health programs, $193 billion in cuts to Food Stamps, $143 billion in student loans, $72 billion in disability programs. The overhaul of the Affordable Health Care Act is part of this change. The reallocation would put more money into infrastructure for $200 billion, and in tax cuts, $19 billion in a parental leave program and $29 billion for veterans programs, plus added spending on the military. William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Republican who worked on budget issues says it will be politically difficult as the cuts to lower income groups come with tax cuts for small businesses and higher income individuals.  Beyond the policy priorities there is an area where both Republicans and Democrats are skeptical of the budget. This is how it impacts the U.S. debt. Under Congressional Budget Office estimates the U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP which rose to about 75% after the Great Recession starting in 2008, is projected to grow to about 85%. In sharp contrast the Trump administration estimates of the Office of Management and Budget are for it to drop to 65% based on rosier estimates of 2% inflation, 3% growth for the decade ahead. Experts say this is unlikely once the Fed raises interest rates and the unemployment rate currently at 4.4% leads to rising inflation, undercutting growth which has remained below 2% for a long period. These concerns are also voiced by Hilsenrath in the WSJ based on the experience of other countries such a Britain that cut corporate taxes without seeing an uptick in economic growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The view from Germany on Trump's economic plan and the need for changes by his advisors. DW.com's Wenkel says Trump needs to understand that 80% of job losses in recent years have come from not from globalization, but automation and higher productivity, rationalization. He says higher tariffs on Mexico could backfire.

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the NYT says Hillary Clinton has studied policy briefings, academic papers and taken advice from 200 policy experts, including experts from Bill Clinton's administration such as Alan Blinder, all in an effort to define her own policy positions on issues facing the U.S. This happens at a time different from the period of slow growth when Bill Clinton ran against George H.W. Bush. Since then middle class families face the added problems of not being able to keep up with the rising cost of college education, health care, child care, low interest rates on savings and volatile markets dampening savings growth. For working class Americans in the middle class during Bill Clinton's time in office the problems take the shape of a sharp decline in the manufacturing wages that once supported a middle class life in industrial states of the midwestern U.S., with global competition doing the damage, and few solutions available except improving technology and technical skill of the workforce to compete in higher end products. Consider the points made by Janet Yellen, the Fed chairwoman at a Boston Fed conference in Oct. 2014- Fed information for 2013 showing the average net worth of the lower half of American families representing 62 million households is $11,000. Only this conceals the situation facing one fourth of these families who have zero wealth or negative net worth, and a significant fraction owing more on their homes than they are worth. Hillary Clinton told a audience at the New School in Greenwich Village in New York, this is the defining economic challenge of our time. " We must raise incomes for hard-working Americans so they can afford a middle class life. This will be my mission from the first day I'm president to the last."...

LyrArc Article Gist
The 2017 Budget presented by the Trump administration has a serious problem in that it assumes 3% growth, and 2% inflation, low interest rates, to generate $2.1 trillion in additional tax revenues over 10 years. Hilsenrath in the WSJ has questioned whether 3% growth is a safe assumption. Then the Trump 2017 budget resorts to double counting which analysts called egregious and wrong by using the unsupported $2.1 trillion in extra revenues to fill holes in the deficit. By doing this it comes up with debt to GDP ratio dropping from about 75% to 65%, whereas the Congressional Budget Office does the math and says it would jump from 75% to about 85%. Such a mistake is called the "most egregious accounting error" by Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury Secretary, from what he has seen over 40 years. The irony is that the budget is called "The New Foundation for American Greatness," because of the lack of a firm foundation in the numbers. Deep cuts in social programs makes the math riskier politically and socially.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Applebaum describes the accounting errors in the Trump 2017 Budget which makes unrealistic assumptions of 3% growth to show higher revenue generation of $2.1 trillion over ten years, and uses that revenue to fix higher deficits from tax cuts- counting the same number twice. A former Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, calls it the most egregious accounting error he has seen in 40 years.

LyrArc Article Gist
Allan Meltzer, a former economic adviser to President Reagan, and an expert on monetary policy at Carnegie Mellon School of Business says that "this is scare tactics to try to do something that is in the private but not the public interest, its terrible." Vincent Reinhart a former Fed economist says Paulson has lost credibility, people don't believe him anymore. And Elmendorf of the Brookings institution says that taxpayers should get more out of this deal with ownership stakes in the companies that use government money. Others like Bruce Bartlett, a former White House economist under president Reagan say the problem is nobody knows what the hell is going on and there are some naive assumptions about how this would function. Martin Bailly, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Clinton says for financial institutions to take the funds Treasury has to pay a premium because otherwise they would have sold already. While Bernanke told the Banking Committe that the government would pay more than the distressed prices to get broad participation which is a goal of Treasury and the Fed, neither he nor Paulson could reassure the committee about how taxpayers would be protected. Most of the economists surveyed here by the NYT are skeptical about a Wall Streeter from Goldman Sachs credibility on this as they see him paying financial institutions a premium price. The sore point in all this for the taxpayers and the public would be that the Bush administration has done nothing to help homeowners with foreclosures that are also at the root of the problem when you look beyond the immediate clogging up of the financial system and present a threat via declining home prices. And Paulson now offers a plan that also is very hazy about protecting taxpayers with equity ownership or some other protections, and has nothing to assuage the public's outrage about ceo compensation in the midst of distress. Not just the Banking Committee but experts from all sides of the political spectrum are raising concerns stressing one or other of these points, and find the lack of details in the Paulson Bernanke plan a sign of a hastily put together plan with little research even considering the lack of time, and the lack of any details a strain on people's intelligence for a proposal of such magnitude....

LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSJ cautions about thinking that the GDP growth of 3% is likely to be achieved with the Trump plan for a corporate tax rate of 15%. He says evidence from Britain and Canada- Britain reducing the tax rate from 30% in 2007 to 19% today, and Canada from 28% in 2000 to 21% in 2004- is disappointing. In Britain the increase in GDP averaged about 0.1% a year. Business investment increases with cut in corporate taxes, and the U.S. corporate tax rate is higher than other advanced countries such as Germany, yet GDP growth includes other factors, such as the business cycle, demographics, productivity growth, aging, technology, regulation, says Ip. It is better if the tax cuts are spread broadly over the population, and tax cuts are offset to a greater extent by savings in other areas, and that tax cuts promote productivity boosting investment, to create enough of a surge in growth above 2%.

LyrArc Article Gist
As Russia expands its intervention in Ukraine in Feb. 2015, a former Deputy Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration, Roger Altman, points out the importance of the response of global financial markets. Financial markets have downgraded Russian debt, and the ruble continues to lose value. With $200 billion in foreign currency reserves available to tackle the financial crisis caused by $150 billion in capital flight and 50% loss in ruble value, and a business sector with large dollar debt, Russia, he says will have to take into account its weak financial situation. Arms aid to Ukraine to which Russia can respond is not a good option compared to stronger economic sanctions, says Altman. Altman points out- what president Obama has also pointed out- Russia has a GDP the size of Italy, a population of 140 million, with its budget and economy overly dependent on oil exports, and an economy connected to the global economy and dependent on global technologies. It lacks the economic strength to continue with its more aggressive policies, and cannot ignore world opinion indefinitely or isolate itself from the global economy. This is true of any country in the global economy, and especially for any emerging market dependent on foreign capital, foreign investment and foreign technologies, making it important for Russia to play by the rules of fairness in the international community in the postwar global order of peaceful cooperation. As Schemann points out in a NYT editorial observer Russia is losing credibility in the global community....

LyrArc Article Gist
CNN reporter Cassie Spodak provides this exceptional report into the minds of New Hampshire Democratic voters who gave Bernie Sanders a 22 percent lead in the New Hampshire Democratic primary over Hillary Clinton. In October 2016 Hillary Clinton has the support of Bernie Sanders against Donald Trump in the U.S. presidential election. She described it as "100 percent support" in television debate. Sanders has appeared with Clinton twice, and campaigned 4 times in New Hampshire, and continually across the country. Younger New Hampshire voters still long for Sanders as their favored candidate. Older voters and some who have been motivated by Sanders to run for local office see the shaping of the Democratic Party platform as a victory for Sanders. Key planks of Sanders, taxes on the wealthy and higher incomes to pay for student tuition, infrastructure, and helping working class families, are now key parts of the Democratic platform. These voters see this as a pragmatic step and are enthusiastic in their support for Hillary Clinton. Overall Clinton now has 87 percent of Democratic voter support in New Hampshire according to a WMUR/UNH poll in mid October 2016, and she is doing well with millenials and independents nationally, a critical bloc of voters for Clinton to show nationwide support. One member of the steering committee for Sanders in New Hampshire named Dudley Dudley, reflects the opinion that has shifted the party to emerge united during and even more so in the final months of the presidential campaign of 2016- she tells the CNN reporter Spodak that she supports Hillary because "of the way she has grown, and stretched," and the way Clinton and Sanders are now campaigning together and working together. Both Clinton and Sanders deserve credit for their extraordinary ability to grow during their campaigns and during the party's way to shape the way forward. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Neil Irwin of NYT provides some counter intuitive ideas on U.S. Fed interest rate policy. He says it can't be take as a given that the Fed will raise rates in 2017-2018. This depends on how much punch there is in the Trump economic policies for stimulus, and for infrastructure spending, tax cuts. He cites Senate Majority Leader McConnell who said he would like to keep "tax reform revenue neutral." Getting large spending and pushing up the deficit is likely to run up against Republicans in Congress who have for 8 years opposed large spending increases and large deficits. Trump has given few details about his stimulus or infrastructure spending plans. He says the scale of the spending might not match the talk. Irwin cites JP Morgan Chase economists who have kept their forecasts for GDP growth just under 2% for 2017 and 2018. And he points out that even Trump appointees at the Fed might act independently. The Fed might look at being cautious considering that increased trade tensions with China, and the unpredictability of a Trump administration could hurt growth. Irwin does not mention the uncertainty in other areas such as policy towards Russia on which the Republican party and Congress have very different views than Trump, tensions over Taiwan, that can also affect growth. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The truth is very different from the rhetoric coming from the Obama administration about helping Main Street America and ordinary workers against "fat-cat bankers," says Goldfarb. Under the Obama administration banks have grown larger and gained more influence over administration decisions. No conditions were made part of the agreement that would require banks to lend a portion of the money handed out to the banks to ordinary borrowers. And not much of significance was done to help homeowners under water, which would enable a faster recovery. In this respect the policies slanted in favor of banks of the Obama administration worsened the prospects of an economic recovery. Experts from Reagan advisor Martin Feldstein- who as early as 2008 advocated serious help to homeowners under water to reduce principal and interest- to the FDIC's Sheila Bair and Princeton Prof. Krugman, across the ideological spectrum, perceived this being in the national interest. Feldstein's first op-ed on his plan appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 3/7/2008, followed by ones on 4/15/2008, 10/4/2008, 1/20/2010/ 10/12/2011 in WSJ, and a oped on 10/30/2008 in the Washington Post, repeating the call for siginificant debt reduction to homeowners. Banks had extraordinary influence on successive administrations in the U.S., both Republican and Democratic- the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations- so that policy actions could be distorted from what would otherwise take place. A study by two University of Michigan professors shows that banks did not increase lending after receiving government money. Instead taxpayer money was used to invest in risky securities for profits from short term price movements, resulting in gains of about 10% in investment returns. Ran Duchin, one of the two professors, says helping ordinary borrowers was not the most profitable use of capital for banks. Without the necessary conditions from the Obama administration, the banks depolyed capital in ways that did not help the economy. Similiarly when banks needed to be restructured no preparatory action was taken because of resistance within the administration- a request by President Obama to Treasury Secretary Geithner for preparing a plan for the restructuring of Citigroup was ignored, according to a report by Goldfarb and Wallsten on 9/17/2011 in the Washington Post....

LyrArc Article Gist
This is an indepth article on Donald Trump's financial holdings, looking at the debt that Trump has built up in his real estate dealings, by Susanne Craig of the NYT. To get a detailed look of this the NYT inquiry into the holdings engaged RedVision Systems, a national property information firm to search publicly available data. Much of Trump's business is shrouded in mystery. But it is well known that Trump has used debt to build his business in a way that is not considered good practice in business, having led to three bankruptcies. Trump says he "is the king of debt." And "he loves debt." The recovery of real estate values during a rescue effort for the country's financial system also helped Trump tackle debt in a way that was not available to other entrepreneurs who suffered from the oil price collapse- one of them McClendon also used debt aggressively and his business collapsed leading to suicidal car crash. You can love excessive debt only if the government supports you with some sort of financial guarnatee misplaced, or you are lucky to get away with it- just ask McClendon. The irony is that the rescue of the financial system led to the low interest rates that hurt savings of the middle and working class, and the lack of help to Main Street in the home foreclosure crisis also hurt the same people disproportionately. The Obama administration policies in this regard rescued the very same business interests such as the New York real commercial estate symbolized by Trump, that are now appealing to those hurt as president Obama worked to let the financial system recover. The intention was never to support excessively overleveraged banks or overleveraged real estate built on debt, but in reality this is what happened. A nation cannot run its financial affairs in this manner of overleveraging to extract high profits that an investment bank such as Lehman or Goldman Sachs does, or a real estate company such as Trump's does- if regulators let them do this. Normally after the financial crisis of such dimensions that it shook the world economy in 2008-2009 leading to fears of a collapse as happened in the 1930's, the same faces would not still be there. But this is a strange period or a transition period where things are being sorted out, and the same faces Blankfein at Goldman Sachs and Trump in New York commercial real estate are with us.  And though the bashing of Goldman Sachs connection to Clinton is evident in the campaigns of Trump and Sanders, the bashing of Trump real estate and finance companies with its overleveraging and bankruptcies is evident in the campaign of Clinton against one posing as a representative of the working class. John Paulson who benefitted by shorting mortgage securities that caused the financial crisis of 2008 is on Trump's top economic advisory team, including the hedge funds and financial interests on Wall Street that Trump is saying support Clinton. No one, not the NYT or WSJ, can answer this, its just the paradox of today's situation. Hillary Clinton can say she has learned her lesson, with her Methodist upbringing and her own supporters such as Robert Reich and others, and break with the past especially as it in no way contributes to her success as president, not one bit. In fact rebuilding the middle class and infrastructure require entirely different connections and views on life, a different imagination.  Trump has billions of dollars and a real estate business that is so complex that even the NYT and property information firms can only say that in the end it is shrouded in mystery. Companies owned by Trump says the NYT from this inquiry have debt of $650 million. Other Trump business activities through 3 passive partnerships owe an additional $2 billion. It is a lot easier for Hillary Clinton to put the speech fees behind her as they have little to do with what she is as a Methodist and a proponent of improving women's lives, than it is for Donald Trump- for whom his business is everything that he is including his art of the deal- to reject who he is. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker has opinion about the financial crisis that is deeply felt. He wants the wall that separates banks that take in federally insured deposits from the public separated from the risky trading activities of investment banking houses. That would essentially put us back to the situation that existed before Glass Steagall Act of 1933 was revoked in the 1999. The lessons of the thirties apply today. Says Volcker "people say I am old-fashioned and banks can no longer be seaprated from nonbank activity, but that argument brought us back to where we are today." The Obama advisers like Geithner and Summers are close to the bankers- see the links to Geithner and Summers- and believe that extensively regulating the banks would prevent the banks from engaging in risky practices. However as this reporter Louis Uchitelle of the NYT has not pointed out, the problem is that this is more easily said than done. The very fact that there were close ties between Geithner and Summers and the bankers during the Clinton Administration and Geithner as head of the New York Fed under the Bush administration, and the aggressive lobbying by the investment banks like Goldman and others who are now banks to water down any regulation on derivatives trading and on other supervision, can only lead to a situation where neither Volcker's solution or the Obama people's solution is put into effect. THis will only invite another crisis. With the public anger even worse as the bonuses and compensation from trading profits by Goldman and other banks come through cheap money created by the Fed- see links- for the purpose of addressing the financial crisis. Volcker would separate JP Morgan and Bear Stearns trading operations and separate Merrill from BofA, and Goldman would revert from abank holding company to a investment banking house. Volcker believes that the pay on Wall Street "has gotten grotesquely large." Volcker believes that the separation of deposit taking institutions from investment banking would reduce trading profits and consequently automatically reduce these large bonuses. So is Volcker being ignored by the Obama administration, even as his glow helped the Obama people win public support as a better steward of the economy than McCain during the election campaign? During the crisis Volcker headed the president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Today he is rarely seen in his Washington office, he talks to administration officials mostly on the phone, at 82 he is not knocking on doors, and the advisory board has been assigned to look at the tax law on overseas corporate profits. Volcker agrees with most of the Obama plan on financial regulation including higher capital requirements and and pay guidelines, but if this is not enacted because of lobbying by bankers then the nation will have the benefit of neither the Volcker Plan or the Obama Plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Kristof of the NYT says the narrative about Hillary Clinton being dishonest is clearly overdone and inaccurate. He says the gaffes about the use of personal email server have unfairly created a distorted narrative. On changing positions on trade and minimum wage- this happens frequently with all the candidates. Some are glib enough for not being noticed, Clinton not a natural politician drawing attention. On Libya, and on Syria, Clinton is blamed for the President's errors and not given credit for pushback in league with Panetta, Gen. Kean and Gen. Jones, that has influenced changes made in 2016, and the president accepting blame for errors. In this instance Clinton has been far from shifty by publicly allying herself with Leon Panetta's position in "Worthy Fights," and Gen. Jones's remarks. Far from having erred on Libya and Syria policy, Hillary Clinton, like Chuck Hagel and others in the administration including Joe Biden, showed exceptional patience in dealing with the president, national security advisor, and McDonough in policy matters- when they were right but the country was weary of what were seen as futile global engagements in remote areas setting too high a bar for any action. Clinton rightly described this as a pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction after the Bush/Cheney years. On young women and being "progressive" Hillary Clinton is from a older generation that experienced the kind of discrimination that young women fail to grasp, according to a recent analysis of University of Massachusetts polling survey results cited in the Washingon Post. A PolitiFact Pulitzer winning fact checking site shows 50% of the Clinton statments are either true or mostly true, compared to 49% for Bernie Sanders, 9 percent for Trump, 22% for Ted Cruz, and 52% for John Kasich. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bernie Sanders announces his support for Hillary Clinton as nominee of the Democratic Party after a long season of bruising primaries. The effort is now to heal the divisions in the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton has adopted some parts of the Sanders agenda including some aspects of providing tution free education in public colleges. Both Hillary and Bernie appeared at a joint rally in New Hampshire. Sanders said that at the Democratic Platform Committee ending on July 10, 2016, the two had come together on setting a platform that he believes is the most progressive ever for the Democratic Party.

LyrArc Article Gist
Peter Orszag's role in the healthcare debate and the formulation of health care policy proposals. One proposal of Orszag, who heads the Congressional Budget Office, is to set up a new agency with powers to cut spending and implement changes in Medicare. Says Orszag, "one of the reasons we have such disjointed and skewed incentives is that we have an excessively political process." At a recent meeting with House Democrats, one Congresswoman said her top priority is winning higher payments for oxygen suppliers, and Orszag was taken aback. For years officials have been trying to cut payments to oxygen and medical equipment suppliers, which are said to be inflated. When a new competitive bidding process was set to take effect last year, industry supporters in Congress were able to delay the plan, and these supporters are still fighting to block changes says the WSJ. Here is a 40 year old Orszag, with degrees from Princeton and London School of Economics, who got his early experience in the Clinton adminstration at age 24. He then followed this with a number of policy oriented jobs, ending with appointment to head CBO in 2007. And he faces the whole system of Congressmen from both parties beholden to interests in the healthcare industry, who provide the donations for them to finance their election campaigns. Dan Eggen describes this in the Washington Post, 7/21/2009. Max Baucus of Montana, and to some extent Grassley of Iowa, are senators from both parties who Eggen points out are beholden to the healthcare industry because of large donations they receive from the interests in the healthcare industry. These interests want to see their payments system protected. The further escalation in health care costs, which would make the whole healthcare system unaffordable even as it delivers poor results, can only be prevented by making cost control an exercize that is not influenced by healthcare industry donations. Jackie Calmes describes the huge hurdles in achieving a deficit neutral move to universal health care in the U.S. in the NYT 6/26/2009. See the link. The exchange between Grassley and Orszag on the issue of the $177 billion in savings needed from the payments to health insurers under the Medicare managed care plans- which allow seniors to obtain Medicare coverage outside the government run program -went as follows. These are dubbed overpayments by outside experts and efforts have been made to cut them in Congress. When Mr Grassley raised concerns about the impact of such cuts in a hearing, -and Grassley has opposed the cut for this overpayment to insurers- Orszag responded saying: "I very firmly believe that capitalism is not founded on excessively high subsidies to private firms. This is what this system delivers right now." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This leader in The Economist reviews an essay in the magazine's October 8-14th, 2016 edition by U.S. president Obama. In it Obama points to the unfinished tasks of his presidency and what comes next as tasks to be done for the U.S. economy. The Economist points out the problems in the 2016 election campaign where there is a lack of discussion of economic issues as a serious problem. Obama lists as priorities efforts to improve conditions of people left out in the recovery, reducing inequality, offering more job opportunities, and increasing productivity.

LyrArc Article Gist
Damian Paletta of the Washington Post says that credit goes to Gary Cohn a former Goldman Sachs president, and head of the president's National Economic Council for the way he has quietly built up a group of leading experts on major initiatives of the Trump administration such as tax reform, infrastructure plans. Compared to the infighting and other problems in the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, Cohn is credited with building a core of ideas and experts that bring Trump more to the centre and with the prospect of winning Democratic party support. He has helped shift the president to set up a more balanced approach, less confrontational with China and not calling China a currency manipulator, getting support for the Export Import Bank, and more receptive to the Federal Reserve led by Janet Yellen. This report says an alliance of moderates is centering around Adviser Jared Kushner, Cohn, and in other reports Tillerson in foreign affairs is seen as being part of this group. On NAFTA the president has moved to a less confrontational approach with Mexico, which has helped the Mexican peso recover and improved prospects for the Mexican economy.  On infrastructure new ideas to find financing are needed and a plan to tax carbon emissions is intended to draw Democratic support as well as provide some of the funding. About $200 billion in taxpayer money and $800 billion from private investors is being discussed at the National Economic Council. This report says Cohn suffered from dyslexia in childhood, graduated from American University, and joined Goldman Sachs in an unconventional way. He shares a passion for deal making with president Trump, yet at the same time values the views of experts he has brought to formulate concrete plans for the way ahead. About 25 experts with extensive experience in government helped put together new tax changes, infrastructure plans, and international trade deal plans. His predecessor at the NEC, Gene Sperling, gives him credit for quietly pulling together the experts and doing the planning that the Trump administration now depends on. ...