World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Conservative Party under David Cameron won 330 seats in the British parliament, securing a majority in the 2015 general elections. The Labor party won 232 seats, losing 26 seats compared to the 2010 election. The Conservatives gained 24 seats. The Labor party lost very badly in Scotland, winning only 1 seat. The Scottish National Party won 56 of 59 seats in Scotland. Opinion polls underestimated the strength of the Conservatives whose campaign theme was jobs created under the Cameron administration. Austerity was a theme for the Scottish National Party and Labor, yet as Greg Ip reported in his column on the British economic recovery the Cameron administration adroitly managed this by relaxing deficit targets after 2012 forecasts on the deficit cutting could not be met with lower revenues. Labor was hit by the sense that the Tony Blair type liberal economics had failed to reverse the decline in real wages and jobs for working class people, and the Conservatives were taking on a tough situation with the deficit and the 2008-2009 recession that started under Labor. This hurt Labor in Scotland and in the rest of Britain. Labor leader Ed Balls lost his seat. The UK Independence Party fared badly winning only one seat and its leader Nigel Farage lost his seat. Prime minister Cameron promised a EU referendum for 2017 during the election, and he will now have to manage this issue as his party favors membership in the EU with some changes. The improvement in jobs was a strong point for the Conservatives, yet Britain faces wage stagnation with low productivity gains which will be a challenge for the new administration....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
An analysis done for the Wall Street Journal by real estate portal Zillow.com, shows the median down payment in nine major U.S. cities rose to 22% in 2010 on properties purchased with conventional mortgages. Banks favor higher down payments today because it reduces the chances of delinquencies. Median down payments were at about 20% in 1990, then the payments declined in the nine cities Zillow looked at: Chicago, Stockton, Las Vegas, Miami, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco and Tampa. The drop went as far as 4% in 4th quarter 2006, and in some places close to zero. Experts say these are the markets where more home buyers are under water. A 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis shows that buyers with smaller down payments are more likely to default in unfavorable economic situations. A contributing cause of the 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis was the very low down payments. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation chairwoman Sheila Bair, says she supports minimum 20% down payments....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
It took a long time for the banks to understand what is in their best interests is in the best interests of the country's economy and homeowners, something Sheila Bair has been saying since the beginning of this year and implementing at IndyMac. Its just too costly for banks to use the foreclosure process to recover their money and it makes much better financial sense on the bottomline of banks and for the economy to make home payments affordable. Because the worse home prices get the worse the economy and banks do and nothing drives home prices down like foreclosures. The Bank of America settlement for Countrywide with state attorney generals to modify loans for 400,000 homeowners because of predatory lending practices also set the direction. Chase Bank is now using the Bair template to get the monthly payments down to an affordable level which is about 40% of the current payment by reducing interest rates and using a smaller loan balance and keep homeowners in their homes. Chase's plan will help 400,000 homeowners and will also help homeowners who are having difficulty making payments. It will put a 90 day hold on foreclosures till the program is put in place. Yet there is one problem. Only $350 billion of the 1.5 trillion in home mortgage it services are owned by Chase, the rest are owned by investors in the form of mortgage securities. It can do little for homeowners covered by these securites that are owned by hedge funds and other funds as a few of these funds oblivious of the overall interest including their own have threated to sue if loans are modified, and it would take some time to figure out who owns each security and what the terms are for modifying loans for that security. Its this part of mortgage securitiization that has slowed down a rational process of unwinding this problem throughout housing by making homeowners monthly payments affordable. And Fed's Bernanke did not come to grips with this point in his talk about mortgage securitization to UC Berkeley on October 31,2008, that mortgage securitization done in a way that make loan modification difficult is dangerous as it is today, and makes a crisis bigger than it otherwise would be, and turn a USA crisis into a global crisis through ricotcheting effects and a series of bad decisons....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Sharp swings in attitudes have left America divided in terms of education. A comparable situation exists also in the UK as areas with more education access have separated from areas with less access to higher education. As the WSJ analysis points out at one time social cohesion prevailed in the postwar years till 1970 with educational attainment playing a small part leaving social cohesion intact. Even in the period 1970-1990 when there was a shift for college educated women to prefer Democratic Party and white men without a college degree to prefer Republicans this was not a significant gap. The Democratic Party appealed to less educated union voters in manufacturing industries as well as it did with college educated men and women. This gradually fractured during the Clinton and Obama administrations as the Democratic Party  moved closer to the higher educated and drawing more support from new tech industries than manufacturing. Nowhere is this more evident  than in the way college educated women have shifted to the Democratic Party and white men without a college degree have moved to the Republican Party. Swings of different types are normal in elections and politics. But swings purely based on education are rare in American politics and not healthy for the democratic system of government. As the analysis from WSJ/NBC News shows college educated women favor Democratic Party by 33 percent margin. And the swing is even deeper for white men without a college educated degree who favor Republican by a 42% margin. This is the situation before the 2018 U.S. Congressional elections. The combined group of college educated women and white men without a college degree make up 40% of the U.S. voting public. This makes each group unreachable for the other party, a situation unimaginable for many of America's leaders if they would be living today- from presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. White voters make up 70% of the electorate, and a situation where they would be unreachable for Democrats would be unthinkable or unimaginable for Truman, John Kennedy. And Eisenhower would also find it unimaginable that he would have to writeoff college educated women in his campaign.  By returning the Labour Party to its roots Britain is combatting this tendency for fracturing of social cohesion. In the way the UK's Blair administration moved away from Labour party's roots in manufacturing and the trade unions, the Democratic administrations under Clinton and Obama  moved away from manufacturing industries and the trade unions.   Most of the postwar leaders of the stature of Eisenhower and Kennedy would have seen such a situation as a significant failure in political leadership. ...

FDIC Pushes Purge at Citi

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
It is not clear whether Citigroup is off the problem list of banks, banks which rate a 4 or a 5 on the scale of 1 to 5. This could change even now after the stress tests. Here's why. Since late 2007, Citigroup has more than $50 billion in write-downs and loan defaults. The recent stress test of the 19 largest banks produced results that showed additional large losses looming over Citigroup, and questions are raised how Citigroup passed. The test found that estimated losses could reach $104.7 billion in loan losses through 2010 under the government's worst case scenario, and face nearly $20 billion in losses on its credit card portfolio. Yet the Fed's conclusion that Citigroup needed to bolster its capital by only $5.5 billion to withstand another economic shock did not reflect these facts. Investors and analysts also saw Citigroup as being in much worse shape than the other banks. THe FDIC did not agree with the Fed's conclusion. Only the Comptroller of the Currency agrees with Citigroup CEO Pandit, that the Citi model is not broken and just needs more time. THe FDIC wanted the rating lowered for the Citibank unit, and sparred with the Comptroller of the Currency over this. The FDIC has 305 banks on the "problem" list, and would like to add Citigroup to this list, so that it could keep a tighter review of what is going on at Citigroup. FDIC is helping finance a $300 billion loss sharing agreement with Citigroup, and has large exposure to Citigroup. FDIC's Bair thinks Citigroup has not moved fast enough to get rid of unwanted assets which might cause problems if the economy deteriorates, and would like to see a change in management. FDIC officials have approached former US Bancorp CEO, Mr Grundhofer, who is highly regarded in the industry, as a possible replacement. One reason being that while most of the problems of Citi stem from consumer loans, Pandit's experience is in investment banking, and he has not moved fast enough to get rid of risky and unwanted assets. He has failed to bring in managers with experience in handling the kinds of problems Citigroup faces in this crisis. With the FDIC's Bair having anticipated the crisis earlier than other regulators, the FDIC is expected to get additional powers in the new regulatory structure. This may result in tighter supervision of Citigroup. It also shows gaps and flaws in the stress tests that let some banks off too lightly, and make them vulnerable to the next episode in this crisis. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A detailed account of the expansion of Banco Santander under Emilio Botin, using his shrewd financial abilities and extraordinary stamina. Botin expanded the bank with acquisitions of Banesto in Spain, Abbey National in UK, and acquisitions in Brazil and Mexico. This reduced its profit exposure in Spain to 15%, reducing its risk in the 2011-2013 banking crisis in Spain. Botin's family has run the bank for three generations, with the bank now headed by Patrcia Botin, after Emilio Botin died of a heart attack in 2014. Sheila Bair, former head of the U.S. FDIC, says the bank is run efficiently, and Botin was careful to manage risks prudently in the global financial crisis of 2008. Banco Santander benefitted from the years of rapid growth in Spain following Spain's entry into the European Union in 1986, the year Emile Botin took over as chairman. He comes from Santander in northern Spain, and studied law and economics at Spanish universities. With the passing away of Adolfo Suarez, and the abdication of Juan Carlos, the passing away of Emile Botin in the same year, three of the men who helped create modern Spain have now faded away....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Erlanger and Castle look at the reasons given for the resounding defeat of the Labor party in 2016 British elections. Mr. Blair's view is that Labor as a traditional left wing party going against a right wing party produces a traditional result, reflects the Thatcher years when Britain was looking for a new way forward after the previous Labor governments and state involvement in the economy. More forces were at work in this election, say experts. Peter Mandelson of the Labor party and Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief Micklethwait, say other forces are at work, with Scottish nationalism depriving Labor of a core constituency it had relied on, with 40 seats in the 2010 elections going down to 1 in 2015 general election. English nationalism meant the only gains for Labor in England came from Liberal Democrats not from Conservatives. Cameron appealed to Englsih voters that a Labor left oriented government in alliance with the Scottish National Party, which is more to the left than Labor, would be bad for England. Other commentators have suggested that liberal economics of the type espoused by Blair and Gordon Brown had failed to reduce inequality or improve living standards of working class people, led Britain into the 2008-2009 financial crisis, and lost credibility. Globalization, the decline of heavy industry in Scotland, and other changes in the global economy have also changed the playing field. The Conservatives showed flexibility in relaxing deficit rules after 2012, and were intent on protecting the National Health Service, giving their campaign theme about putting Britain on the right path to economic recovery more credibility. Other issues such as immigration also played out against Labor, hurting labor more than the Conservatives, with the defeat of Labor's Ed Balls in Leeds attributed to the increased votes going to the UK Independence Party from working class and centrist voters. In the end Labor received only 30.1% of the popular vote. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Gretchen Morgenson sees systemic risk looking ahead beyond 2013 in the $4.6 trillion repurchase obligations market or repo market. Problems in the repo market caused the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the financial crisis of 2008. Bernanke, Dudley, Bair and other finance officials have referred to the risk in the repo market which have not been reduced since the 2008 financial crisis. In the repo market money market mutual funds provide short term funding to banks accepting collateral such as mortgage securities. These are overnight loans made to banks and other financial institutions based entirely on trust. During normal functioning the trades are rolled over. The risk is that the trust disappears in a few days as happened for Bear Stearns and Lehman and the firms not able to obtain this short term financing. This is a very unstable form of financing and Lehman depended on it because of the low cost and not having to set aside capital for the trades. Basel III rules require that banks set aside capital against the assets they finance inthe repo markets, and a recent JP Morgan report says the 8 largest banks would need to raise $28-$34 billon in capital for their repo business....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The FDIC had $19 billion in its fund that insures consumer's deposits at the end of 2008. A bill in Congress by Christopher Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, gives the FDIC access to $500 billion till the end of 2010 if the Fed, the President and Treasury secretary support that, and $100 billion without that approval. The FDIC proposed raising the fees banks pay into the deposit insurance fund to buildup the fund, that has been depleted by bank bailouts like the one at IndyMac which cost $10 billion. But banks protested because it comes at a time when bank's are already in a bad condition. Under a 1991 law the FDIC can borrow from the Treasury amaximum of $30 billion. The access to $500 billion is meant to let the FDIC act as another source of funds to address systemic risks that arise in the future, in addition to the $700 billion already approved by Congress for that purpose. In an interview Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC, said that a change in the law would "ease the mechanics of how seamlessly we can access our lines of" funding. I'm the kind of person who likes to be prepared for all contingencies."...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Ruth Marcus looks at the assumptions behind Romney's tax plan and questions whether simplifying the tax system with lower rates would help create the climate for higher economic growth and lower unemployment. Much of the differences between Republicans and Democrats revolve around this assumption, a core belief on one side and skepticism on the other. An effort to obtain a bipartisan assessment was made with the Simpson-Bowles commission recommendations, which advised closing loopholes and reducing deductions. The work done by Martin Feldstein on the Romney Tax plan builds on this approach of limiting deductions, and reducing taxes across the board. An issue for Democrats is inequality. Lower wages to improve competitiveness in manufacturing industry is a trend in Republican and Democratic administrations, because of the effort to improve U.S. competitiveness against other trading nations and has played a large part in lowering incomes in manufacturing oriented midwest and eastern states. The other cause of increasing inequality is the housing crisis and the effects on the economy through foreclosures and unemployment. The housing crisis developed under a Republican administration, and the lack of effective measures to prevent foreclosures under the last 4 years of a Democratic administration worsened the economic condition of the middle class, and especially so for minorities. During the housing and foreclosure crisis the proposals put forward by Republicans Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, and Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC who calls herself a "populist from Kansas," for bold government help to homeowners under water would have helped the middle class financially, and especially minorities, far more than the efforts of the Democratic Obama administration, and under Feldstein's plan even turned aound the housing market and boosted a recovery. Trends in world trade and industry have large effects outside what administrations of either party can control, and a lot depends on the temperament, wisdom and leadership provided....

Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Joseph Stiglitz describes policies and programs of the Obama administration that favor banks and avoid a government takeover of over leveraged and badly managed banks in the U.S. President Obama's policy transfers financial assets to banks on highly favorable terms even though some of the banks made bad decisions and highly overleveraged assets creating the 2008 global financial crisis. The policies avoid a government takeover of banks, policies which the U.S. aggressively pushed for in other countries such as S. Korea during the 1997 financial crisis with Rubin, Summers and Geithner at Treasury. These policies would come under strong criticism because it rewarded risk taking and kept in place an incentive system that led to such behaviours- creating "heads I win, tails you lose" psychology. It also delinks the performance-reward relationship that is the basis of free enterprise in western economies. A problem that would be left from the crisis and the Obama administration's response to it is "Too-Big-To-Fail," with banks larger than before. The FDIC and U.S. Fed's plans for banks to have living wills for an orderly windup under Dodd-Frank legislation only goes a part of the way in tackling this problem. In the U.S., and in Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, the related problem of high bonuses continues into 2014, with RBS bank in Britain one of the egregious examples and highly unpopular with the British public. The lack of similiar government help to homeowners, advocated by Reagan economic advisor Martin Feldstein and FDIC chairwoman Sheila Bair from the beginnings of the crisis stands in sharp contrast to the response of the Obama administration. See the links for Barr, Feldstein and Hoenig. In an ultimate irony from the crisis handling much of the damage from foreclosures was done to minorities which supported the administration. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ reporter Monica Langley provides a glimpse behind the scenes of how Donald Trump comes up with his attacks on rivals, and statements on immigration, terrorism, refugees. Trump pays close attention to what is riling voters on any particular week, but other rival politicians are not willing to say. He looks for what resonates with the public, and in today's environment where politicians are cautious, careful and plodding, this strategy works. Donald usually puts down a few points on his private plane, looks at reports from campaign staff, yet makes all the decisions himself on what and how to say it. His memory helps, he says. And he has a flair for words, sounding uncouth at times, but yet choosing words carefully enough to sound reasoanble to his audience. In Jan 2016 this approach has worked for Trump in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, stalling progress by rival Ted Cruz, and holding back other rivals. Yet this approach has its risks as the primary season progresses. One of the changes in the Republican party politics in 2016 is the emergence of two candidates Donald Trump representing the white working class, and Ted Cruz representing evangelicals, who are both strident and willing to take strong positions on issues in striking contrast to leading Democrats. Trump on China, immigration, refugees, and Cruz on taxes, cultural issues for evangelicals, IRS, Affordable Health Care Act, and both candidates on terrorism. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mr. Andrew Bailey, the top financial regulator, chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, takes over as the next governor of the Bank of England. He has held several positions in the Bank of England including as head of a group that studied the global economy. He left in 2016 to head the FCA. The Bank of England last changed interest rates in August 2018, raising it to 0.75% from 0.5%. Uncertainties remain with Brexit even after the election victory of Boris Johnson because Brexit plans are to get it done including negotiations very quickly.  One change from before is that both the Bank of England and the government of Mr. Johnson are committed to keeping steady growth. The Bank supporting the economy and Mr. Johnson with plans to spend heavily on infrastructure, NHS and schools. It was this plan that helped Mr. Johnson win support across England. Previous Conservative governments reduced spending following the financial crisis of 2009 which happened under Labour administration of Mr. Brown following Mr. Blair. ...
New York Times Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
On October 30, Sheila Bair heading the FDIC, the main advocate for reducing foreclosures by reducing the mortgage payments is in discussions with Treasury officials for a plan whose details are still being worked out. A key part of it is for the government to assume half of the losses on home loans that are incurred if mortgage companies agree to lower monthly payments for at least 5 years. The cost to the government is about $50 billion that would come from the $700 billion bailout fund. Right now loan companies are reluctant to reduce monthly payments because homeowners might defaul again or the owners of mortgage securities might file law suits. The funds would go to shoulder half of any future losses on default. For example if under a loan modification program 40% redefault and losses on loans are 55%, and $500 billion in loans are modified under the program, the total losses government would bear are $55 billion. This scenario is possible in a deep and prolonged housing and economic slump. This would be a gradual program if mortgage companies or companies with home loans or servicers of loans have to decide if they want to take advantage of this program, and time is critical as the foreclosures are accelerating and thisputs downward pressure on prices....
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
To understand the way DJT has selected key people- it follows a traditional Republican pattern getting the best qualified Republicans on board. Some of them may not be as good as the ones they replace but some may be better administrators with good judgement. Sheila Bair of Wichita, Kansas, ran the FDIC from 2006-2011 and was one of the finest at FDIC who also contributed to solve the 2009 financial crisis.  Gary Gensler was slow in acting on cryptocurrency and other regulatory matters. He is one of the first to go in the new DJT administration. At the SEC a former SEC commissioner now legal officer at Robin Hood, or law partner at Sullivan and Cromwell. At CFPB a law professor at George Mason University or a previous Comptroller of the Currency. To understand where DJT is headed there are opposing ideas cap credit card interest rates at 10% that no Democratic administration ever brought up, and discarding a rule challenged in courts that caps credit card late fees. The VP Vance's instincts also come into play as he has also fought to lighten the burden on consumers. The Comptroller of the Currency- A law partner at Jones Day, who was Deputy Comptroller of the Currency in the past. The five member FDIC can only have maximum of 3 members from one political party. For the FDIC to replace Martin Gruenberg who had to resign for not taking enough action to correct a toxic workplace that was unfriendly to women, DJT will consider the Republican Vice chairman of the FDIC, or one of the Republicans board members on the FDIC  ran an investigation into the FDIC.  ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Anthony Faiola describes how Berlusconi gained political power in Italy, his television media enterprises that that upended social norms and built an audience through comedy shows and showing buxom women, the power base he built with the loyalty of housewives and pensioners and the use of special favors to the political class, the affability that helped him continue through several crises including corruption charges. Comparisons could be drawn with Rupert Murdoch of Britain, for the influence of media businessmen on politics. But there are several sharp differences. Murdoch used papers like News World that purveyed gossip and scandal to win large newspaper audiences with tawdry methods. He was influential in bringing politicians on both sides of the political spectrum- Margaret Thatcher of the Conservative party and Blair of the Labor party- to power. At the same time he was concerned about the national interest, was mindful of his responsibilities as a newspaperman, saw himself as the worthy successor to a father who started the newspaper enterprise he would run and was remembered as a distinguished journalist who exposed the problems of the British military in Gallipolli, Turkey, during the First World War. Murdoch's desire to be seen as a serious journalist as well as a businessman, led to his desire to acquire and run the Wall Street Journal. Even in his leaving Berlusconi shows a complete absence of any concerns for Italy, being more obsessed with himself. He tells the Italian newspaper La Stampa that his situation is similiar to that of Benito Mussolini when he wrote about his feeling of betrayal in a letter to a lover: "At a certain point he says: 'Don't you understand I don't count for anything anymore?' I have felt in the same situation." To the world outside Italy it is hard to comprehend that even as Murdoch was being skewered inside Britian for the News World episode and apologized and appeared shaken by the experience, Berlusconi would be treated passively by the public and Italy's political and ruling class. The editor of Italian magazine Il Foglio is quoted as saying Berlusconi was "a cultural reformer," and the leader of the opposition Democratic party, is quoted as saying that even after his resignation Berlusconi will remain in politics, behind the scenes, and "invent his successors." ...
The Economist Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
DW.COM Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Jeremy Corbyn is reelected leader of the Labor Party with the support of young people. He is seen here from the European viewpoint as a disaster for Britain. The parliamentary group of the Labor Party opposes Corbyn, and is critical of him for not supporting the Brexit no vote the way he should have. Corbyn did not come out strongly in favor of staying in the EU, giving it a 7.5 out of 10 score when asked how he would rate the EU. Only a fifth of British voters support the idea of Corbyn as prime minister. He is good at bringing people's concerns for attention at prime minister's questions, rides a bicycle to work, and is honest about his convictions. Yet this is not enough to be effective as a leader of the opposition who lacks the support of his party's members in parliament. Corbyn has also dropped people with different opinions from the leadership in the Labor party in a nasty fight with people who disagree with him, which is bad for the Labor Party. This has weakened Labor to the point where it cannot function as an effective Opposition Party, especially now that Britain enters Brexit negotiations and needs an opposition to act as a check on the government's policies. The Economist magazine in London shares these concerns in an editorial. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Some figures on the foreclosure situation. 2.3 million Americans faced foreclosure proceedings in 2008, 81% increase over 2007. 860,000 properties were repossessed by lenders, more than double the 2007 level, according to RealtyTRac a foreclosure listing firm in Irvine,, California. Moody's Economy.com predicts the numbers to go up 18% in 2009 before slowing through 2011. That is 2.71 million foreclosures in 2009. To prevent the foreclosure levels from getting much worse as unemployment drops, the new administration plans to use upto $100 billion of the remaining $350 billion TARP funds to help homeowners. The 4 states hardest hit are Nevada, Arizona, California and Florida. More than 1.1 million properties there received foreclosure notices, almost half the total nationwide. The hardest hit areas are in California, with the metro areas worst hit in order are Stockton, California, Las Vegas, Nevada, Riverside and Bakersfield, California, and Phoenix. In December more than 303,000 properties nationwide received foreclosure notices, up 40% from year ago month, and 17% above November 2008. At 303,000 the yearly rate is 3.6 million foreclosures or higher for 2009, so the Moody's estimate for 2009 must take into account acceleration of steps to help homeowners with the new administration. Are the rather modest steps taken upto now helping? RealtyTrac analysts estimate that without a state law requiring lenders to give borrowers a 30 day warning before starting the foreclosure process, the foreclosures in California would be 10% higher. There are similiar state laws in Massachusetts and Maryland. Throughout 2008 few steps were taken by the Bush administration to slow foreclosures, even though Republican economists like Martin Feldstein repeatedly advocated this. See links to Feldstein and Sheila Bair of the FDIC who also advocated aggressive action, and providing the numbers to show that it was costlier for lenders to see borrowers go into foreclosure compared to reducing principal and interest payments significantly. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Martin Feldstein supports cutting "tax expenditures," -the special purpose deductions such as the deductions for mortgage interest, charitable deductions, state and local government taxes and other such exemptions- as Bowles-Simpson Deficit proposals have recommended. Bowles-Simpson would use this money to reduce tax rates and only $80 billion of this to reduce the deficit. Here Feldstein suggests capping the individual's benefits from such deductions at 2% of adjusted gross income. Research by Feenberg and Feldstein on the use of such a cap shows that this would reduce the federal deficit in 2011 by $262 billion or 1.7% of gross domestic product. The list of deductions used by Feenberg and Feldstein for these figures are: deductions for mortgage interest, state and local income and property taxes, charitable contributions, credits for dependent care, children and certain education costs, and the exclusion of employer payments for health insurance. Sunc a cap would not affect the 46% of taxpayers who use the standard deduction and would induce others to shift to the standard deduction. By doing so this will simplify the tax system and reduce economic inefficiency. Feldstein advises that Congress should include and individual cap on total benefits from tax expenditures in any program to tackle the deficit....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Martin Feldstein looks at Bowles-Simpson Deficit Commission proposals and says the deficit reduction does not come soon enough. He points out that the Bowles-Simpson proposals still leave the national debt in 2020 at the level it is today- at 60% of GDP, and not reach the level of 40% of GDP that we had 2 years ago till 2035. The mere prospect of persistently high deficits, he says, jeopardizes the recovery by creating the expectation that tax and interest rates will eventually rise substantially. He says the Bowles-Simpson spending reductions by reforming the tax code that subsidizes mortgage payments, local government spending, health insurance and other items at an annual cost of $1 trillion, are the best approach. He differs with Bowles-Simpson in how this money would be used. Whereas Bowles-Simpson would use it to lower tax rates, leaving only $80 billion a year for deficit reduction, Feldstein would finance major deficit reductions. Feldstein recommends additional universal savings accounts to supplement Social Security. And he supports the Bowles-Simpson proposal for limiting the growth of government health-care spending to 1% more than the growth of GDP. He says the President needs to scale back the tax and spending proposals in the budget presented in the early part of 2010....
Economist Original article ›

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us