LyrArc Article Gist
The Guardian sends its reporters along with UN special envoy on poverty Australian Prof. Alston as he spends two weeks in the world's richest country looking at poverty in urban areas.  They look at some of the 55,000 homeless people in Los Angeles, homelessness exacerbated by the tech boom in California that has sent housing costs skyrocketing. LA saw homeless people increase by 25% in 2017. The safety net is not being reinforced as the Trump administration cuts many social safety net programs. Next they visit the Tenderloin district in San Francisco where homeless people can be found at St Boniface Church sleeping in the pews. As the Guardian points out the cuts to social programs disproportionately hurt people of color who make up 39% of the homeless in the U.S. This report looks at the incongruity between the tax cuts that are likely to hurt poor whites who supported the Trump administration, as well as hurt the social protections that are part of today's democracies across the western world. This is most evident when one looks at the European Union. They were put in there in Europe for a reason- fairness is good for all classes, and most of all it protects democracies. Authoritarian regimes arise out of social dislocation from wars, or from lack of social protections and ineptitude of elites. Which is why a Lincoln or a Theodore Roosevelt from the Republican party supported fairness and social protections as much as FDR and Truman from the Democratic Party. The view expressed in this report in the Guardian is that the U.S. may have moved in the wrong direction under the Reagan and Clinton administrations creating the "me first" culture that prevails in the U.S. today. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
One reason Republicans and Democrats are looking at taxes paid by business is that some corporations are paying very low taxes. This report in the WP cites GE's annual filing showing GE (General Electric) paid a low of 4.2% in taxes in 2013. By plugging tax loopholes U.S. president Obama's budget proposal for 2015 would raise $276 billion in higher taxes from these large corporations for overseas earnings over the next decade.

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the Economist points to the improved situation for Mexico after the scare from Trump's plans to build the wall and deport large numbers of immigrants. The peso dropped by 15% between mid November 2016 and January 2017, but has since recovered, and non-oil exports were up 5.5% in February 2017 over prior year with the manufacturing growth in the U.S.  Growth forecasts are now up from about 1% GDP growth previously to 2% for 2017, close to the 2.3% in 2016. Much of the change in mood in Mexico is a result of the failure of the early travel bans being blocked in the courts, the failure to get health care legislation through Congress, and the effort by the trade advisers and economic advisers around Trump to move Trump's positions more to the centre and closer to traditional Republican party positions. Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary, says " a sensible agreement" can be reached with Mexico. Peter Navarro, trade adviser, talks about making "a mutually beneficial regional powerhouse." Robert Lighthizer, a veteran from the Reagan days, is likely to be made the new U.S. Trade representative. Still as the Economist points out the "20% border adjustment tax" continues to be supported by Paul Ryan in Congress to pay for tax cuts. But certainly the mood has lifted in Mexico in the first 100 days. This is true for economic policy in relation to China and Germany, and the close circle of Ross, National Economic Council head Gary Cohn, and Secretary of State Tillerson is moving Trump to the centre in policy statements to get things done. Mexico is faced with internal challenges of reestablishing the rule of law, improving infrastructure, reducing red tape and corruption, addressing problems in the education system, to promote economic growth. These challenges may prove to be as large as the external challenges were once thought to be. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jack Horton of BBC Verify screens the former president Trump's speech at the Republican National Convention. “Our crime rate is going up, while crime statistics all over the world are going down".  Fact: FBI data shows crime down 6% and a drop in the murder rate by 13% in 2023. For the First Quarter of 2024 crime down by 15% and recorded murder rate down 26%. "We've had the worst inflation we've ever had under this person [Biden]. I will end the devastating inflation crisis immediately, bring down interest rates and lower the cost of energy . We will drill, baby, drill."  Fact: Inflation went up to 9.1% from 1.4% at the end of the Trump term in the first 2 years of of the Biden Administration by June 2022. Biden and Federal Reserves Powell brought this down to 3%. Explained: This inflation jump to 9% would have happened from supply chain in China for Trump administration as well. Trump's last year was 2019 the Covid pandemic started in January the lockdown by midyear meant sharp drop in demand and little room for inflation. The concentration of supply chain in China was the cause of the surge in inflation as China shut down and restarted late into 2022 causing shortages in factory parts and supplies. Biden focused on vaccination in 2020-2021. This inflation would have happened under Trump- this concentration of supply chain started with Reagan economic philosophy to ship production (and jobs) overseas, Clinton Bush Obama and Trump did little about it. Biden invested heavily in Make in America manufacturing and jobs at home. Biden and Powell did a good job of bringing this inflation down by 2023 to 3% before the European Union and UK. Younger voters don't know this they get their news from the internet and show little interest, see only that the low inflation under Trump and the higher inflation during the pandemic recovery under Biden and blame Biden. will Trump do better on inflation in 2024-2028. The WSJ does not think so its analysis shows inflation higher under Trump than Biden because of a planned 60% tax on imports from China. Trump follows Reagan/Friedman theory of the old Republican party of higher tax cuts for the wealthy, so no money is left for investing in American manufacturing and jobs as Biden free of this theory is able to do, leading to slowing growth with inflation under Trump.        ...

LyrArc Article Gist
One key point came in early Harris said she had a Plan for the economy, for an Opportunity Economy, Trump she said had none. Trump did not offer a plan. Harris spelled out a plan to tackle housing costs including a $6000 child tax credit and building 3 million new homes. Harris called higher tariffs, double than exist today, a way to increase costs for each family by $4000. She also pointed out that economists had confirmed that Trump tariff policies would lead to higher costs for Americans as they would be passed on by importers. Harris also offered a position of all of the above that included fracking where appropriate to increase oil supplies to bring down prices for American families, a key issue in Pennsylvania. On immigration and crime it was David Muir who reminded Trump that the FBI had stated crime was down in the country. On Ukraine, Afghanistan Harris clearly explained that US was not at war for the first time in one hundred years and was saving the US $300 million a day it cost for the war in Afghanistan. On Ukraine she said Biden-Harris had strengthened NATO and ties with allies, in an answer to David Muir's repeated question to Trump "Is it in the US interest for Russia to win the war in Ukraine?" To which Trump offered only a reply that suggested this was not important for him, disavowing US policy from 1900 to preserve the rule of law in international relations that no country should violate sovereignty of other nations through invasion. Among Republicans this is an issue with Mitch McConnell and others supporting Biden-Harris. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This Wall Street Journal editorial says the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) currently being put through the House is unlikely to pass especially with a supermajority tax limitation. It raises questions about the advantages of BBA considering that the 1981 Reagan tax cuts may not have survived the BBA, a period when the U.S. experienced robust growth for 7 years. Unintended consequences could put defense spending at risk such as the Reagan spending on defense that helped end the Cold War, which may not have survived the BBA. The editorial calls instead for a repeal of the Nixon administration's 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, a law which tilted control of spending in the favor of Congress after Nixon's impoundment battles with Congress over spending. This would mean getting rid of budgeting that uses baselines and increases the budget from one year to the next automatically, restoring the President's impoundment powers, and requiring a two thirds majority for tax increases. The editorial supports the House Republican majority's plan to cut spending in fiscal 2012 by $111 billion and cap spending as a share of GDP in future years....

LyrArc Article Gist
James Grant, the editor of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, tells us what he thinks of the Fed printing up so much money and adding atrillion dollars to its assets since Labor Day. He reminds us what Elihu Root, Republican from New York warned about the dangers of letting the central bank create money at such apace that things can go wrong. Should the central bank take on the role it has of allowing things to go lax with low interest rates at one time as Greenspan did, and the pumping out so much money under Bernanke in this crisis. Grant sees some advantages in the gold standard in that so much credit could not be easily constructed under a strict conversion to gold.

LyrArc Article Gist
Sebarros of the WSJ takes a closer look at the key words used by U.S. president Trump in rallies in city after city during the 2016 election campaign and in the months before the Congressional elections in 2018. Analysis by the WSJ counted the unique two word phrases, how often Trump highlighted topics, the content of audience respones in 48 post election rally speeches through Oct 27.  In 2018 the words "tax cuts,"fake news," and "health care," appeared more often than in 2017 after the Republican party's win in passing a tax cut. Other phrases used frequently were "law enforcement," "North Korea," and "Supreme Court" after the win in nominating Judge Kavanaugh. The use of the 2 word phrases are carefully done. The words "fake news" were not used during sensitive periods such as when pipe bombs were mailed to government offices, yet resumed few weeks later. His own name is the seventh most used word, even for someone such as Mr. Trump, showing that behind the impromptu remarks there is a carefully worded effort to steer voters in a particular direction with carefully developed appeals. Another example is when the Dow Jones averages were reaching new highs in September and October Mr. Trump highlighted the stock market growth, and then when volatility increased by November said much less on this topic. Graphs by Jessica Wang provide a good look at how frequently and in what manner Mr. Trump has continued his unique campaigning style before the 2018 Congressional elections, with two word appeals to already receptive audiences. The audience participation is a singular feature and the words "U.S.A." were used in 85% of the rallies with "Build that Wall" at 65% as the next most frequent.  Much of it is repetitive in city after city and the WSJ analysis shows that the major television networks including Fox News are not covering the speeches from beginning to end as they did before, only C-Span public network does. To receptive audiences in carefully scripted surroundings, including larger ones such as the Toyota Center Houston, where larger numbers of supporters worried about immigration, health care, trade, and other issues can come together, president Trump has rallied core supporters with this kind of appeal. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
To get a right grasp of the situation as a whole from the bigger picture than the headlines, is to know that even in the current chaotic immigration handling of both parties, the US comes out a winner in long term by 2034. That it gives for the younger generation a better future. Congress's Budget Office economic report shows GDP higher by 2% from the higher immigration of 5.2 million added to the US workforce by 2034. US productivity higher by 0.2% and residential investment including construction up by a whopping 10%. The younger profile of immigrants will help the US compete with India's younger population, and as China ages to have what it and Europe is aspiring to have- a younger population. The best way to look at the immigration issue is for the short term- manage it better by organized method of immigration without chaotic border crossings by allowing potential immigrants to apply from their home country, a step taken by the Biden administration. What it or any Republican administration could not control is the immigration that happens from countries the US is at war with or in conflict with. It is important to recognize that this is what happened with Venezuela the largest component of the immigration border crossings in 2023. It was made worse by actions of both parties Democrats and Republicans and made worse in 2017 by more severe sanctions on Venezuela under the Trump administration.  Also part of the problem is Venezuelan mismanagement- providing oil at pennies a gallon, hurting imports and spiralling inflation that only worsened under US sanctions after 2017. Long term- To reflect that US sanctions on top of mismanagement by Venezuela is a warning for all developing countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia and for the US. It meant 7 million refugees a staggering quarter of Venezuela's population fleeing the country, that burdened neighbors Columbia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile. By 2022-2023 many of these refugees were making their way up the Darien Gap to the US. Yet within this tragic situation for Venezuelan people how could the US best respond is to close the border as president Biden has proposed with McConnell and the Lankford effort in the Senate, which was blocked by the House under Mike Johnson. This gives time to assess the situation, correct US laws on asylum and parole that allowed this chaotic way to proceed under actions of both parties.And not let this destabilize the US by understanding that while Venezuela has suffered for its role in the crisis the US will ultimately have come out a winner, as pointed out by the Congressional Budget Office projections. CBO projections of this immigration impact by 2034 of increasing the workforce population by 5.2 million will provide higher GDP, more tax revenues, and higher productivity than without this group of Venezuelan and other immigrants in this special situation of 2022-2023. For the Immigration projections discussion given by Phillip Swagel, Director of the Congressional Budget Office see page 51 of the Budget and Economic Outlook 2024 to 2034. For this search for term Congressional Budget Office or CBO which brings up the report on PDF and turn to page 51 or just click on Original Article on Lyrarc.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Allan Blinder gives a spirited account of what he sees in the Paul Ryan Republican deficit reduction plan. He says that with the voucher plan retirees would fall further and further behind the increasing cost of health insurance. With no explicit cost containment proposals it assumes that some kind of miracle will occur for costs to be kept in check- especially as Republicans want to repeal the cost containment proposals in the President's healthcare plan. He asks whether someone is saying, that we have to destroy Medicare so it can be saved. Ryan woulld also turn Medicaid into a block grant, then underfund it and let the states figure it out when they are in a budget squeeze. Blinder points to the estimates of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, that show about two-thirds of Ryan's budget cuts would come from programs that serve low and moderate income Americans. And to make matters worse the steep spending cuts go to finance tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy. He calls this Robin Hood operating in reverse, and coming on top of 30 plus years of rising inequality. David Stockman makes a similiar point on the editorial pages of the New York Times, April 24, 2011; also adding the point that the middle class will have to pay higher taxes for the deficit to be addressed, something President Obama's plan fails to do. Blinder says that the Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin -Domenici proposals attack the deficit reduction problem in a better way, that asks something from all classes and interests. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ provides a fact check of Trump statements on crime, debt, and taxes. Trump says he is looking at a new plan for taxes not the $10 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years reducing tax collection by 22%, but something about a third of the size. No details are available on the plan. WSJ disputes Trump's statement that the U.S. is "one of the highest taxed nations in the world." WSJ points out that the U.S. in 2014 for federal, state and local government taxes collected 26% of gross domestic product in taxes, compared to average of 34% for about 30 countries, according to OECD. Debt to GDP ratio is about 75% that is high, but because of low interest rates the budget deficit is less than 3% of GDP, which is close to the long run average. For this reason economists say the government should invest in infrastructure and R&D that supports long run economic growth. On crime the record is mixed with increase in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, but decreases in Washington D.C. and Baltimore. Police shootings were 67 in 2016 compared to 62 in July 2015, and the high being 280 officers in 1974 when Nixon was President. Crime was an issue in the 1968 Republican National Convention during the Vietnam era protests, police shootings and terror incidents attracted attention in July 2016, yet the situation today is very different from the war protests of the Vietnam era. On terrorism fact checks by the NYT and in Lyrarc shows Clinton at State Department and Panetta at Defense Department taking hawkish stands only to hit a barrier from President Obama for taking action needed in Syria, Iraq and Libya. Panetta's new book calls for robust action where needed. A Clinton administration would take action with allies in the Middle East. Even Hollande and Obama who pulled the U.S. and France out of following up in the French-British Sarkozy-Cameron led intervention in Libya, have changed policy, with Obama calling it his biggest mistake. France under Hollande with the U.S. is now actively engaged in the Middle East, having changed policy. It is highly unlikely that a Trump led policy which alienates most allies in the Middle East- Iran, Iraq and Saudis- is likely to work better than a determined Clinton-Panetta led effort which has support of the local countries on the ground actually currently on both sides because of complexities of Middle Eastern politics.  On trade a new administration will still have to work with China, India, the European Union, and other countries, as global trade supply chains are not likely to evolve overnight. Lessons will have been learned by Clinton about the need to bring back jobs and ensure the strength of U.S. manufacturing. Economic and jobs growth will require prudence in strengthening U.S. manufacturing coupled with global cooperation, which a Trump administration that alienates trading partners without the possibility of making any serious immediate gains in jobs, is highly unlikely to do better.      ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Liberal groups feel president Obama has lost the leverage he had after the McConnell-Biden fiscal cliff deal of Jan. 1, 2013, saying this only sets the stage for talk of spending cuts.

LyrArc Article Gist
The non-partisan approach taken by Republican governor Snyder of Michigan contrasts sharply with the approach of Governor Walker in Wisconsin and Governor Brownback in Kansas.

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
Krugman points out that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is 34% in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because president Obama let the high end Bush tax cuts to expire. It is the number to remember says Krugman- 34. In 2008 the figure was 28.2. Under Hillary Clinton the average tax rate for the top 1% would go up by 3.4 percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some of this would help pay for the tution plan to provide access to the middle class to public universities. Under populist Trump, Krugman points to the elimination of the inheritance tax and tax rates going down substantially, and no such programs to promote the upward mobility that everyone is talking about, and no way to pay for a big infrastructure building effort for growth and jobs- upward mobility that is the focus of every candidate's election campaign including Sanders, Trump in appealing to older white working class families, Clinton, Ryan, Bush, and others in both parties.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Stephen Moore of the WSJ interviews Grover Norquist, head of the advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform. Republicans in Congress and other Republican leaders have signed on to the "no new taxes pledge" promoted by Norquist. There is increasing pressure on Norquist as the media, White House, and executives on Wall Street call for flexible positions from both sides on taxes and spending cuts. Norquist insists that not much has changed. He says that the increase in taxes on the rich is only symbolic and has to be followed up with increasing taxes on the middle class. He cites a Rasmussen poll that shows 75% of Americans believe this. Norquist is convinced that the Democrats with their spending plans are out to take the U.S. in the direction of European economies, the tax increase on the rich would be followed up with a energy tax or a value added tax to pay for unrestrained spending. His solution is for Republicans to pass a bill that extends the current tax rates past January after roughing it through the tax cliff date. Even the sequester option is better than increasing taxes says Norquist, letting the Defense Department make the cuts where appropriate. Norquist does not favor the option of reducing tax loopholes and deductions as a way to increase taxes as proposed by Simpson Bowles commission and Ryan-Romney in the election campaign. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Former Senator Jim DeMint lays out his reasoning for the Republican fight to defund ObamaCare, as the healthcare legislation is now called by Republicans. He points to problems with the legislation with issues about how much the added entitlements will cost in the future( more than the $250 billion by 2023 estimate of CBO insists DeMint based on the general lowballing of projections), and higher premiums for the young and elderly on exchanges. He says the 2012 elections were fought on economic issues not ObamaCare, and that the public he has met in visits to different states as president of the Heritage Foundation continues to be skeptical about ObamaCare. He sees the correct role of the Opposition party to point out the deficiencies in the law and call for corrections in the path for healthcare.

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. House of Representatives votes 285-144 to suspend the debt ceiling till Feb. 7, 2014. The deal forged in the Senate by Democrat Reid and Republican McConnell passed in th Senate by 81-18. The U.S. stock markets closed with the DJIA at 15374, up 1.6% compared to Sept 30 when the government shutdown began. The Republicans opposing the passage outnumbered those supporting it 144 to 87 in the House of Representatives. Because this was a repeat of similiar failure to reach agreement and last minute deals in 2012 and 2011 the equity markets appear to have taken the conflict between the two parties in stride.

LyrArc Article Gist
Buffett's view that higher capital gains taxes will not result in less business investment. He favors a $500,000 figure instead of the $250,000 proposed by president Obama for Bush tax cuts for incomes below that level.

LyrArc Article Gist
How to deal with Bush era tax cuts is a big issue dividing Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. If no deal is reached by Jan 1. taxes on the average middle income family would increase by $2000 in 2013. Median inflation adjusted income declined 8.9% to $50,054 in 2011 from $54,999 in 1999, and economic mobility has fallen. The Democrat's position is for Bush tax cuts to apply to incomes below $250,000. Peter Orszag of the Congressional Budget Office and Jared Bernstein point out that while this makes the tax code move in a progressive direction it also creates handicaps in providing a sufficient revenue base to support middle class spending programs down the road. According to the Tax Polcy Center, if Congress is unable to reach agreement and all tax increases go into effect Jan 1, taxpayers in the bottom 20% of income distribution would see a $412 increase in taxes compared to an increase of $633,000 for the top 0.1%. New York Mayor Bloomberg has supported eliminating the Bush tax cuts for all groups, saying there is no free lunch. Alan Krueger, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, says the trends caused by globalization and skill-biased technological change which have increased inequality are likely to continue or accelerate. ...