LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial on the sliding scale with lower capital gains taxes for investments held for a longer time frame proposed by Hillary Clinton, says there is no economic theory that shows one or two year investments are worse than longer term investments, and says investors who invest in startups and cash in after a year or two can then invest in other startups increasing investment capital. It points out that new startups are fostered better in an environment where capital gains taxes do not promote holding investments for a longer term. Hillary Clinton is calling for higher capital gains taxes on shorter term investments. The current rate is similiar to the 20% rate under Bill Clinton. George Bush lowered it to 15%, and president Obama increased this to 20% for couples earning more than $484,851 a year, and added a surcharge of 3.8%. Under Reagan it was initally 20% in 1981 and in 1987 as part of tax reform cutting the top income tax rate to 28%, it was 28%. Hillary Clinton's plan is for it to be based on how long investors hold their investment discouraging 1-3 year investment horizons- Year 2- 43.4%, Year 3- 39.8%, Year 4- 35.8%, Year 6- 23.8% or the current rate for the highest income bracket. Investments in infrastructure and long term research projects leading to new technologies and products require a longer horizon encouraging such investments. The Clinton plan appears to be a response to the tech bubble with investments in small tech changes and software improvements that have led to surging investment in startups in social media and other areas which have not yielded the productivity gains needed to support increase in wages- resulting in low productivity and low wage gains in the last decade....

LyrArc Article Gist
Bush's last news conference, or exit interview as he called it. He thinks about Katrina hurricane relief failure but says 30,000 people were lifted off rooftops. Iraq, the security council resolution 1441 did make it clear- disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. He thinks the "Mission Accomplished" banner on an aircraft carrier after liberating Iraq was a bad idea, and "Abu Ghraib", a big disappointment". But regarding Guantanamo Bay and Iraq he thinks it may be that the elite and some some countries in Europe find it unpopular. Some say that the moral standing of the US is damaged in the world. But he says go to Africa, go to India, and ask about their view of America. Go to China and ask. "But people still understand that America stands for freedom, that America is a country that provides such great hope."

LyrArc Article Gist
Elliott Abrams quotes former President George Bush from November 2003 when he asked the question: "Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom and never even to have a choice in the matter?" Abrams, former deputy natonal security advisor for President Bush, says the autocratic regimes and dictators of the Middle East have offered a false choice to the US- its us or the Islamists. Roger Cohen also points this out in a recent article in the New York Times. For Tunisia he says this was never defensible. It is a largely secular nation with a literacy rate of 75% and per capita GDP of $9,500, and Ben Ali, the dictator of Tunisia, jailed moderates, human rights advocates, editors, anyone who represented hope and change. Abrams says Mubarak has done the same in Egypt. And he warns that if you make moderate politics impossible as Mubarak in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia have done, then you make extremism more likely. Ruling by emergency decree for decades creates a real emergency, as has happened in Egypt. Bush made that speech at the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, and he reminded Americans that "sixty years of Western nations excusing and accomodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." He admits that the Bush administration did not always conduct US diplomacy in this vein, but the President took the lead and the Obama administration's abandonment of that mindset is nothing short of a tragedy. Obama's policy of "engagement" actually endangers the US position as a supporter of liberty and freedom wherever it is stifled or muffled, because it turned a blind eye to the people themselves as it engaged with the dictatorial regimes in the Arab world and other countries. When the elections in Iran were stolen the Obama administration hesitated, waffled in its committment to liberty, fearing that it would affect nuclear negotiations. Obama did not -as of late Friday night Jan 28, 2011- call for free elections or clearly demand democracy. The law school analytical processes that Obama brings to the presidency and the demands of geopolitical diplomacy are impervious to the loud voices demanding freedom in countries denied liberty. Obama has forgotten the very same voices he passionately heard when he wrote in his first book that in the words "we hold these truths to be self-evident" he could hear the spirit of Douglas and Delaney, as well as Jefferson and Lincoln, the struggles of Martin and Malcolm and unheralded marchers to bring the words to life. He could hear the words of interned Japanese families, the voices of Russian Jews in lower East side sweatshops, of dust bowl farmers during the depression, all these voices clamoring for recognition and asking the question about what is community and how it can be reconciled with freedom. This failure to recognize these voices clamoring for freedom and economic opportunity is all the more striking because it was vision and a bold sense of purpose that energized the Obama campaign and both the vision and the bold sense have eluded the administration. Abrams calls for a clear unequivocal committment by the US government in favor of freedom and peaceful efforts to achieve it in the Middle East, because he says that as the demonstrators are telling the world outside supporting freedom is the best policy of all. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How the Bush presidency started with hopes in domestic policy that were never to come to fruition. Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate, reflects on the promise of the Bush State of the Union address of Feb. 2001, and the compassionate conservatism it evoked- the Bush priorities of education, setting higher educaion standards, immigration reform, helping needy and at risk children, health care access. He recalls the words used by Bush in Spanish: "Juntos podemos," we can do it together. As governor of Texas Bush had focussed on racial disparities and gaps in education, winning 27% of black votes and a third of Hispanic votes. Then came 9/11 (2002), weapons of mass destruction (from 2003 onwards), which soon overshadowed the education efforts, grants to extend health insurance coverage, initiative to encourage mentring of at-risk children. The $10 billion program to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean is a part of the Bush legacy, other areas were overcome by the distraction of wars in the Middle East....

LyrArc Article Gist
Of the approximately 411,000 deportation cases at the U.S. immigration courts for deportation of children of illegal immigrants only 593 illegal immigrant students had received relief by halting their deportation by June 2012. This came as a big surprise showing how little the Obama administration had done to help children of illegal immigrants. In its response to the administration the Republican party hoped to reach out to the Latino community and Hispanic immigrants with its own initiative. Senator Marc Rubio of Florida was ready to introduce a bill helping illegal immigrant students by giving them temporary status. At this point President Obama issued his executive order ending deportations for about 800,000 immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children.

LyrArc Article Gist
President George Bush said in 2005, that if someone wanted to get a glimpse of how he thinks on foreign policy, he should read Nathan Sharansky's book "The Case for Democracy." Sharansky was an aide to soviet physicist and human rights advocate Andrei Sakharov. Here he is interviewed by David Feith of the Wall Street Journal. His outspoken activism in favor of the right of Soviet Jews to emigrate got him 9 years in the Soviet Gulag. He was released from prison in 1986, with the strong support of President Reagan. He emigrated to Israel and served in ministerial posts and in the Israeli parliament. Sharansky says the recent protests in Egypt prove his fundamental points. That there are limits to how much you can control people through the use of fear, and that all people, regardless of religion and culture, desire and want freedom. This is a very human message, it showed its power when the Berlin Wall fell, and it is true today in the Arab world. He says the fear that this endangers the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is not well founded. Over the last 30 years the border with Syria has been quiet, because it is really Israeli deterrance that is responsible for this and the quiet border with Egypt. He adds there is no justification for Mubarak remaining, as it only creates hostility in the Arab world against the US and Israel. And he says that Mubarak was no friend of the Jewish people, because even as he made peace with Israel, he continued to let anti-Semitism thrive and used Jews as the enemy to enhance his control. Sharansky says Gaza and Hamas control after the election was an unusual situation because of the corruption of the people around Arafat, so that even Christian villages supported Hamas. And he says the longer a dictatorship is in place the worse the situation becomes in creating more hostility to all those who support the dictatorship, including the US and Israel. For Sharansky, the Obama adminstration's response to the Iranian protests after what is seen as a stolen election in Iran, were one of the greatest betrayals of freedom in modern history. To prevent a one time, one person, one vote, Sharansky says the democratic institutions have to take root and this will take more than 8 months, so guarantees need to be put in place that this is not allowed to happen. Safeguards put in place to ensure that whoever is elected cannot survive if democratic institutions and reforms and democracy building does not occur. Dissidents like Mr Ibrahim and others should enjoy the ability to build trade unions and women's organizations. Sharansky says this is a real chance, a chance for the US and the free world to become a partner in change. In change that will help Egypt pass the town square test. Can people freely protest and express their grievances in the town square. And move from this fundamental change to establishing democratic processes and institutions. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 327,577 illegal immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal year 2011, ending Sept 30. This is a steep decline from the 1.6 million apprehended crossing the border in 2000. The numbers have been dropping since the 2009 financial crisis and high unemployment in construction and other trades employing migrants. The figures for 2011 suggest a drop of about 25% from 2010. Researchers at the Pew Hispanic Center, say the balance now is about zero for people entering the U.S. across the border from Mexico and people returning to Mexico. In fact there are stories of money being sent to migrant workers without jobs in the U.S. by families in Mexico, which has affected the flow of migrant workers.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. President Lyndon Baines Johnson was committed to spending on a war overseas and domestic priorties for the Great Society program at home. Johnson struggled with Congress to meet the costs of both. He even suggested a 10% tax surcharge to pay for the war and domestic programs. Dallek says 79% of American opposed a tax increase in 1968. Republican Richard Nixon was elected U.S. president that year.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jeb Bush calls for comprehensive immigration reform. He is against small fixes and says the problem is that the law is broken and new laws are needed. As an example he says the chain migration from the provision for family preferences in the current law is not in the U.S. best interest. By comparison visas are in short supply for talented, well educated immigrants from other countries, something that is in the best interest of the U.S.

LyrArc Article Gist
Wagoner became President at age 45, CEO at age 48. So you would think that young blood is coming in to GM, but that does not appear to be the case. At the Board level most of the Board members like George Fisher formerly of Motorola, have been around for a long time, and there does not appear to be new blood that would bring in fresh thinking. And serious decisions about investment in developing new technologies to develop fuel efficient cars, like hybrid technologies, electric and other alternative technologies, diesel technology, have been held up for years at General Motors. The way decisions are made on such issues with Board members voicing their opinions more than wrestling seriously with the issues, shows serious shortcomings of management and the Board. At key points of decision making the CEO and key members of his team had not prepared carefully, and Board members did not come up with serious thinking on the problems facing GM. It, appears that the investment in technologies to develop fuel efficient cars much earlier, long before they were finally being addressed in 2006, was a failure of Wagoner's management and of the Board. Management discussed this but continued to be mired in old ways of thinking that continuing with the status quo- cars with existing low fuel efficiency- would not expose GM to illwinds as preferences changed. Its clear from the description here of discussions within GM that the old thinking is quite entrenched at GM, and Wagoner just was not the kind of person who could vigorously articulate a new vision for GM. A couple of things are noteworthy in this account of management indecision at GM. When fuel prices began hurting sales of SUV's and large vehicles in 2005, efforts to get a decision on investments in new technologies for fuel efficiency for the whole product lineup failed at the Board level in an April 2005 meeting. One Board member saying at that meeting, that" do we want to lose another billion dollars in developing new technology for fuel efficient cars." And no one calling him to account that the remark still did not address the point that GM had to respond to the changing market and world oil dynamics, and not just hope for the best, as GM had aggressive competitors, and faced continually diminishing role in the market place for the entire decade of the 1990's. While April 2005 was already at the tail end of the previous era of gas guzzling cars and a decision then would still not have shown a forward looking vision of things, it was not until 10 months later that a decision was reached. And this almost from necessity, as oil prices jumped in 2006 after hurricane Katrina, and by this time President Bush was also calling for higher mandated fuel efficiency standards. The other noteworthy point here is that by making the changes so late in the game, GM had to compress the development cycle for new and some cases unknown technologies into short time frames. If the ingenuity of its engineers comes to its rescue it still faces another hurdle that of cost, because the technologies have to be perfected and improved, so that the costs are low enough for customers, and importantly comparable with what it is costing competitors to make the same fuel efficient technology engine or other part. Which is why one Honda executive remarked, "GM like everyone else is serious about this, because they have to be, but how many of their hybrids and how many Volts will they sell? Their technology is very expensive." Even if GM develops the Volt electric car by 2010, GM will need a whole range of fuel efficient technolgies to power its large product lineup. Its just to hard to avoid the conclusion that this is going to prove costly. All the dragging of feet and indecision, and failure to prepare GM for a different world in case something drastically different from what was expected happened, will prove very costly especially considering how aggressive and well financed some of the Japanese and German competitors are. It also hard to avoid the conclusion that there is too much bureaucracy at the large auto companies, and getting new blood and new ideas and fresh thinking is tough in a place where everybody agrees with everybody else, and there is uniformity of thinking. This makes it difficult for any original or wayward types to thrive. These bureaucracies look up to the top for direction. Initiative is discouraged on one hand, and at the same time even if a new direction is taken at the top. a lot of resistance can be expected to implementing it throughout the company without persistent persuasion and reminder of new facts and realities. This is true for both Wagoner and Mullaly as they face the skepticism of subordinates to new direction. Mullaly for instance has to remind his managers that large vehicles are only a small percentage of the entire global market, and if Toyota is making money in small cars so can Ford. See the link to this. Is Toyota immune from bureaucracy type behaviour throughout the company? Not really, Toyota's chairman emeritus came out of retirement in fact and went out of the way to caution its CEO and management about their complacency a year or so before. Shoichiro Toyoda personally intervened to caution against too much expansion in the US and climbing wage costs, and other risks they perceived such as the company managers in the USA appearing to be resting on their laurels. See the link to this. A lot of discussion is probably going on within these companies about the present state of affairs, and considerable anxiety for what the future will bring. It may be useful to ask the question is there something that makes it difficult for once successful organizations -now with entrenched bureaucracy and set ways -to put forward leaders with vision and foresight, till it becomes very late? The vision and foresight about where their markets and the world is heading, and the ability to move their organizations in that direction. Or to break out of old patterns of behaviour and thinking....

LyrArc Article Gist
Romney says in the first presidential debate he will not increase taxes on the middle class: "I will not reduce taxes paid by high income Americans. And I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle income families." How he would do this is through limiting or eliminating deductions and loopholes among several measures, with work done on this by his advisor Martin Feldstein, Reagan's economic advisor and a professor at Harvard University- Romney's Tax Plan can raise revenue, WSJ, 8/28/2012. Where the Democrats and Republicans differ is that economic growth generated by creating incentives for business to invest and hire also plays a part in generating the additional revenues as it did under Reagan's economic plan. Behavioural factors play a large part of this as much as the incentives and other steps, to create a climate of business confidence- search in Janvoo for the Group "Reagan memo of 1980 by Shultz, Friedman," for more on this....

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ points out the dangers to the Republican party in taking the stand on immigraton along the lines suggested by Donald Trump in August 2015- deportation for all illegal immigrants, no birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, and no remittances allowed for illegal immigrants to their home countries. It points out that remittances actually improve the economies of the countries south of the U.S. border in Latin America and reduce illegal immigration. There is a need for seasonal workers in farm areas where there is a severe shortage of workers even at $17 an hour. Reducing immigration is better accomplished by more guest worker programs. A likely result would be the move of farms and factories to regions with low cost labor in Latin America or other countries. For the Republican Party this type of policy would bring back the period of the 1920's, says the WSJ, when Irish and Italian immigration was opposed by the party, alienating the two ethnic groups till they were won back in the Reagan period- a sure way to lose in 2016....

LyrArc Article Gist
Reeves says Reagan ever the imaginative politician seized on the idea of "supply side " economics of a not so well known economist Arthur Laffer. Ideas that were simple and appealing- you reduce marginal tax rates and generate higher revenues. This worked for some time with higher economic growth for a number of years, but the arithmetic of higher spending and borrowing and lower taxes would eventually lead to large deficits at the end of Reagan's term, just as price controls worked for awhile and then led to a surge in prices at the end of Nixon's term. When Reagan became President the deficit was 2.5%, when he left office eight years later the deficit was 5% of the economy. Interest payments on debt jumped to $169 billion in 1988, from $69 billion in 1981. Reeves says American politicians know so little about economics, to which it could be added, winning presidential and congressional elections is always a big part of the picture when it comes to economic policy. Which is why Nixon even with Milton Friedman as an advisor shifted to Keynesian policies of higher fiscal spending in 1971, and why Reagan turns to intuitively appealing and effective in the short term policies of having it all- higher spending, growth, and lower taxes. During the years of the two Bush presidencies and the Clinton administration the success of Reagan policies leads to a general sense as Vice President Cheney put it referring to Reagan and Treasury Secretary Baker's belief, that "deficits don't matter." Which leads us to the current situation where 2012 presidential election politics again frame the terms of the debate on deficits and budgets, only now the deficit is much higher and on a unsustainable path. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Feldstein, adviser to the Romney campaign, refutes the assertion based on computer models that the Romney Tax Plan of a 20% across the board cut in taxes cannot be paid for by limiting the deductions of high income tax earners. His own analysis based on IRS data, shows taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of over $100,000 made itemized deductions of $636 billion in 2009. By taxing these deductions at a 30% marginal rate, additional revenue of $191 billion can be raised to pay for the Romney Tax Plan's static revenue loss of $181 billion. A smaller revenue loss of $148 billion is predicted based on increased incomes and taxes from the behavioural effects of lower taxes on earners. He says this was the thinking behind the Reagan tax cuts of 1986 and the Simpson-Bowles commission plan that would generate economic growth by reforming the tax system's distortions.

LyrArc Article Gist
Serious doubts remain about the effectiveness of value at risk or VAR quant models used by JP Morgan Chase to measure potential losses on a trade on a bad day. A newer model used by Chase in the first quarter showed smaller losses. When the old model was run this trade showed double the losses according to Chase managers. Greenberger, a former CFTC official and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, says if the trade become hard to unwind it shows poor risk management. And experts say it is not much of a hedge if it is done in an obscure part of credit markets and hard to unwind without serious losses. Peter Tchir, a former head of index trading at RBS bank, says CEO Dimon must have seen these kinds of hedges as part of his overall strategy, which is why he supported them in April 2012. The problem lies in that the bank size has grown to such proportions that its simply too big to manage, with trades it has to make becoming massive as a consequence.

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
Dana Milbank of the WP says the views of some Democrats on Trump as a good Republican nominee based on the notion that he has high negative perception with voters is fraught with dangers for U.S. democracy. Milbank points out that this ignores what is good for the country. Having Trump as the nominee of one of the two main parties would create a divisive atmosphere and is not good for the country, says Milbank. In comparing Trump with Cruz, he says Trump is likely to follow his instincts to operate outside the U.S. constitutional system. Cruz as a person believes in the U.S. constitution and would never endorse violence or action against minorities. Cruz has not done enough to come across as a likable person with his persistent focus on conservative or Reagan values to the exclusion of everything else. This is changing in mid-April 2016 following a CNN interview with the Cruz family, a MSNBC town hall answering questions from undecided voters, and NYT coverage of Cruz at a Brooklyn bakery, that shows a different human face that people have never seen about Cruz. Cruz's self-deprecating humor in a NYT article where he talks about voters not liking "a hectoring scold," is part of this needed change that could have happened earlier in the campaign. About Trump Milbank cites Conservative party prime minister Cameron who says Trump would unite all Britons against him if he ever came to Britain....

LyrArc Article Gist
A call for immigrant friendly policies in the Republican party in this WSJ editorial. It shows immigrants are not looking for a handout and immigration today is net zero from Mexico.