LyrArc Article Gist
Amy Chozick of the NYT describes the puzzling idea of a Methodist do-gooder, with serious concern for injustices in the South, making an effort to accumulate money. Especially considering that Hillary Clinton must have known that speechmaking fees would come up in a presidential election campaign. Chozick describes in some detail the two years Hillary tried to shore up the family's finances after Bill Clinton's defeat in the 1980 election for Governor. Following the defeat Bill Clinton went back all over the state to voters to hear their complaints, sometimes for hours at a time. It was upto Hillary to shore up the family's finances. Hillary had to stretch to buy a $112,000 home in a better residential neighborhood. Family friends say Bill was never that interested in money, and never worried about the family's finances. Things were so bleak according to this account that Hillary worried about how they would pay for daughter Chelsea's college tution, as her own mother's experience has always remained with her of being denied a college education because of lack of money. During the Democratic Convention this comes up in the video introduction, something that most people are unaware of, which must have been difficult for an intensely private person like Hillary. Her mother is described in that video as having to go to the corner grocery store as a child with coupons for food. The income of the Clintons as professors in the years around 1975 was $18,000 each. As governor Mr. Clinton earned $33,519 in 1978 with combined income at $51,173 adding Hillary's work at the Rose law firm. A one time deal in the commodities market made 100,000, and an investment in land in the Ozarks led to losses- all at a time when other highly educated people in Arkansas were doing extremely well, including the Walton family. It wasn't until 1992 when Bill Clinton was running for president did the couple make higher income of $297,177 reported in 1992 tax returns. At this time entering the White House, of recent presidents only Harry Truman had lower net worth. Hillary donated her book proceeds for "It Takes a Village," to charity, and turned down an advance. By the time they left office the couple were faced with legal debts, owing $5 million in legal fees- Hillary Clinton saying they were "Dead broke." The former president now sought help to buy a Dutch Colonial in Chappaqua, New York, for $1.7 million. President Jimmy Carter was also facing large losses in his peanut business in Georgia when he left office, only to turn to writing books to salvage his finances. Hoover, FDR, Kennedy, George Bush, George W. Bush, were from families with great wealth or built their fortunes, including candidate Trump, sometimes using influence or connections or in the case of Kennedy's family gaining from the end of Prohibition. Eisenhower, Reagan, Carter were of more modest wealth. Only Harry Truman remains the awesome exception of dignity with extremely modest wealth, a small house in Independence, Missouri, no presidential pension, only an army pension of $112.56 a month in 1953. Truman's story also offers another aspect of public service of an exceptional kind and its value to the country for people to reflect on. A presidential pension of $25,000 was set up one year after Truman left office.  Experts say Truman's Senate Committee over 8 years 1941-1948, helped save billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and in faulty airplane as well as munitions development during the war effort, including saving thousands of lives.  In his farewell address in January 1953, Truman said he had spent 17 hours a day for eight years with no payment for overtime. In the address he correctly predicts that the Cold War would be won and he set the course. It also happened as predicted in that address with changes in the Kremlin and failure in the satellite states. Hillary Clinton put in these 17 hours and gained unmatched experience as Secretary of State, and is in a positon to set the course ahead in a manner that Truman once did in a complex world where careful policy, good judgement and in some situations strong action is needed. Such invaluable public service has never really been rewarded in the way business leaders are, not by a small fraction - too long simply taken for granted.  Considering her life story Hillary Clinton appears to have struggled with this all her life, to create a safety net that too often cracked, sometimes suddenly and unexpectedly. Has this concern sometimes gone too far, could better judgement be exercized. Perhaps or probably. Should it be seen in the context that Truman's situation reminds us. Probably.         ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Britain's Tax Service reports the number of taxpayers reporting incomes of 1 million pounds a year declined by over 60% in fiscal 2010-2011 from the prior year. In 2010 the Labor government of Gordon Brown introduced a 50% income tax rate for this income group, up from 40%. The number of million dollar incomes filed declined to 6000 from 16000 in 2009-2010, and revenues declined from 13.4 billion pounds or 9% of total taxes from taxpayers to 6.5 billion pounds or 4.4% or about half. The Labor government had hoped for additional 2.5 billion pounds in revenue, showig unintended consequences and surprises in economic policies.

LyrArc Article Gist
A new report on American driving habits by Samantha Gross and Aaron Brady of Cambridge Energy Associates shows that finally the gasoline price increases are beginning to bite the consumer and American drivers are changing their habits. After increasing from about2.5 trillion miles of total vehicle miles travelled by Americans in 1998 to about 3.0 trillion miles in 2007 the last 6 months are showing a downward trend for the first time. In the late 1970's and early 1980's something similar happened with a deep recession, rising gasoline prices and improved fuel efficiency standards, during this period gasoline consumption declined by 12 % accordingt o CEA. What is different now? For one thing the environmental issues are a big factor now and they take a new meaning as developing countries like India China Brazil and Rusia as well as other countries with much larger numbers of people than the US and Europe are now part of the car buying and electricity using peoples of the world. Its impossible both for the environment and for resource supplies to meet the needs of billions of new people joining the global economy and western ways of living without doing something radically different. And he problem is immediate as China becomes the second largest car buying country and India is not far behind with an explosion in Nano sales expected in the next few years, and the huge demands on electricity in these countries meaning burning huge amounts of coal to generate this electricity and create global environmental problems. All this makes the 70's and early eighties period remotely relevant. We are looking at something hugely different and 21st century defining now as its clear fuel has to be conserved and resources shared between the western world and the developing world, and technology moved forward quickly to meet the needs of a new world of Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas all bundled into one both by the global ecoomy and the way business operates and by the needs of people everywhere. And the media and public perceptions may be just catching up to these changes which are already taking place on the lands and under the feet of millions of people around the world. Some clues to what might have happened. Americans spent 4.5% of their after tax income on transportation fuels in 1981 according to Global Insight, a forecasting firm, and this went down to 1.9% in 1998, and is back up to 4% now in 2008. In California and more affluent areas of the country where the incomes are higher and gasoline prices are higher over 4% is spent on transportation fuels, whereas in areas of Alabama and Mississippi in the poorest areas where gasoline is less expensive this is over 16% according to the New York Times interactive graphic. During this period 1998 to 2008 demand increased for gasoline, in terms of the number of miles driven went up by 25% from 2.5 trillion miles driven to 3.0 trillion miles driven, and the sales of large pickup trucks and SUV's soared to make them the largest number of vehicles sold each year. At 1.9% of after tax income nationally, transportation fuels were cheap and consumers reacted rationally by splurging on gasoline in the USA. As a sobering note to all this sign of improvement in conservation of fuel the miles driven are still at about 3.0 trillion miles the high reached last year 2007. It will take a lag of a couple of years before a changing fleet to smaller vehicles and more fuel efficient vehicles and better driving habits and conserving fuel habits to make itself felt in transportation fuel usage across the USA and this requires prices at least at these levels to make the change seen as necessary to meet global needs and global environment....

LyrArc Article Gist
A open conversation with the NYT's Baker, Schmidt and Haberman by president Trump in mid July 2017. This conversation of the president with the NYT is remarkable for its frankness about people close to the president during the election campaign, particularly Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Sessions was the only leading Senator in Congress who supported Mr. Trump from the beginning. Southern states came out heavily for Mr. Trump as part of the traditional Republican base. Trump says of Sessions that had he known Sessions was going to recuse himself from the Russia investigation he would not have appointed Sessions as the new Attorney General. About Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein Trump says he should never have appointed Mueller as Special Counsel. The president also says Mueller should stay only with information related to Russia and not stray from that to delve into Trump's finances. During the election efforts were made to get Mr. Trump to disclose more about his finances as a real estate businessman- most of these efforts failed and not much is known about president Trump's finances. The president says he never said he would order the Justice Department to fire Mr. Mueller, yet he left open this possiblility, according to the NYT, as the president feels it has affected the first 6 months of the Trump presidency. This interview with president Trump was published on July 20, 2017, the day after an editorial in the WSJ by the Editorial Board of the Journal on July 19, 2017, calling for transparency from president Trump on the Russia investigation. This was an exceptional and powerful editorial by its editorial board telling president Trump that he must tell everything he knows now or face the risk of losing public confidence, and risk his presidency. It said that president Trump was wrong to think that his larger than life personality and social media role could insulate him from the effects of this lack of transparency. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman reviews Acemoglu and Robinson's new book, "Why Nations Fail." Acemoglu says that nations fail when wealth and opportunities are concentrated in the hands of few people, that a condition for societies to succeed is to create opportunities for more people. For this to happen it is important to create inclusive political and economic institutions. This is an important insight, but for Western society this is an insight as old as Adam Smith when he pointed out the importance of this aspect of western societies after the feudal period in his "Wealth of Nations." For Smith it was the failure to create inclusive societies that led to the gradual unravelling of societies in the river valleys of the Yangste and the Ganges, in China and India, of increasing poverty and the gradual disappearance of what constituted the middle class in India and China. Chapter 8 titled "Of Wages and Labor" in the "Wealth of Nations" makes specific reference to this.

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
Fletcher cites statistics from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that between December 2007 and June 2010, private sector employment in Texas went down by 0.6%. During that period public sector jobs increased by 6.4%. Government employees make up about 17% of the workforce in Texas. The Texas economy gets a large amount of federal money because of military installations and NASA- $227 billion in 2009, according to the Census Bureau. By comparison California received $346 billon in 2009. During the recession period after the global financial crisis of 2008, Texas received $25 billion in stimulus money. Richard Fisher of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank acknowleges the federal money going into Texas, yet he points out the driving force in the economy of Texas is still the private sector. For the private sector there are several advantages to being in Texas. There are lower taxes- no state income tax and lower business taxes. The large supply of land for development and few land-use restrictions make development easier. Corporate efficiency was a key advantage cited by Fluor when it moved from Orange County, California to Texas. A growing energy sector has helped, along with the growing trade with Mexico. The housing regulations in the state have acted as a check on housing prices, and left Texas with less of the detrimental effects of the housing mortgage crisis than the rest of the nation, especially California and Florida. The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, says he is not against all regulation, and the kind of housing regulation in Texas certainly has played a good role for Texas. Perry's tort reforms have reduced the legal burden on business prevalent in the rest of the U.S....

LyrArc Article Gist
How the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendations on reducting tax expenditures and the Romney, Feldstein proposals to limit tax deductions and loopholes to make the rich pay more- at the same time as the tax code is simplified with lower rates- offer a basis for moving towards a deficit reduction plan that has support on both sides of the aisle in Congress, of Democrats and Republicans. Jeb Hensarling and Pat Toomey are the Republican members on the Supercommittee to address deficit reduction, who support a balanced approach to raise revenue from taxes and spending. Obama advisor, Chrisitina Romer sees the Simpson-Bowles approach to limting tax deductions as a good starting point for building an agreement. Romer goes so far as to say let the Republicans in Congress decide on infrastructure project selection as there so many worthy infrastructure improvement projects that getting started would be the main objective.

LyrArc Article Gist
Harvard professor, Benjamin Friedman, reviews journalist Timothy Noah's book "The Great Divergences: America's Growing Inequality Crisis and What We Can Do About It." Friedman says, Karl Marx got it wrong when he predicted greater inequality based on the situation he saw in Europe and the U.S. in the late nineteenth century. Inequality actually decreased in the U.S. and Europe with industrialization, technological progress, higher educational and income levels by the early part of the twentieth century. Similiarly Simon Kuznets, Nobel Laureate, also got it wrong when he extrapolated from what he saw in the early postwar period, assuming greater equality and better opportunities in future decades. The approach Noah and Friedman advise is to look at individual factors that promote or discourage less divergence in income levels, opportunities and upward mobility. And based on this shape policy and action agenda for better outcomes. A whole range of issues fall in this range- promoting manufacturing and higher wage jobs, immigration policy, investments in education to upgrade skills, better educational opportunities, vocational training, upgrading education to keep up with new technology, and investments in research and new technologies for new industries that would create better opportunities. Because inequality is increasing worldwide, and countries are focussing on improving competitiveness as well as preserving the social fabric in a global economy, this is an issue facing all countries that seek a better future....

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. presidential candidate Romney's plan to limit deductions to $25,000 leaves the taxes deductions of middle and lower income earners intact and hits high income earners with large deductions hardest.

LyrArc Article Gist
How the French health care system works. France comes in first and the USA 37th in aWHO health care ranking. THe difference in deaths from respiratory disease is half that in the USA, and lower rates of death from heart disease and diabetes. IT has more hospital beds and doctors per capita than the USA. 65% of French people are satisfied with their health system compared to 40% in the USA, and yet France spends 10.7% of GDP on health care and the USA spends 16% for poorer results. THe French system is more generous to its seniors. Unlike Medicare there are no deductibles, just modest co-payments that are often dismissed for chronically ill. And diabetes and critical surgeries are covered 100%. French also buy supplemental insurance like Medigap for extra expenses like dental and eyglasses. Cancer patients are treated free of charge. Avastin treatments costing $48,000 a year are provided at no charge. France's PMI or Protection Maternelle et Infantile, is rated highly. It is anetwork of thousands of healthcare facilities, that ensure that every mother and child in the country receives basic preventive care. Mothers even receive afinancial incentive for attending their pre and post natal visits. France makes this care affordable by reibursing doctors at a much lower rate. The average yearly net income for doctors is around $55,000, about athird of what doctors in the USA make. But French doctors don't have to pay back huge student loans as medical school is paid for by the state and malpractice insurance premiums are only a tiny fraction of that in the USA. And again the French government pays two thirds of the social security tax for most French physicians- which is typically 40% of income. So the $55,000, is more like $92,000 taking that into account and more like $110,000 when student loans and malpractice is taken into account at US levels. Specialists who have 4 or more years experience can charge what they want, but as one gastroenterologist says, there in an unspoken and undefined limit to what you can cahrge or what is socially acceptable. Yet even in France there is inflation in health care costs that the government deals with through price controls and more spending. The French national insurance system is running increased deficits each year and this is now $13.5 billion, and it has led to higher taxes for employers and workers. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
President Obama's proposal on Dec. 17, 2012, in the fiscal cliff negotiations sets the figure at which Bush era tax cuts are permandently extended at $400,000 instead of the $250,000 in earlier proposals. Speaker Boehner's Republican proposal was for a figure of $1 million. The $400,000 proposal would mean that the top tax bracket of 35% would increase to 39.6%. Currently the tax rate increases to 35% from 33% at the cutoff point of $388,500. The White House plan now cuts spending by $1.22 trillion over 10 years. $800 billion comes from cuts to programs, with half of these cuts in federal health care programs, $200 billion in programs like farm price supports, $100 billion in military spending, and $100 billion in other domestic programs over which Congress has control. The White House proposal also supports additional spending on infrastructure, extension of expiring unemployment benefits, protection of "vulnerable populations" such as the disabled and wounded veterans on Supplemental Social Security benefits in inflation calculations, and permanently stop expansion of the alternative minimum tax affecting the middle class. On business investment the president's proposal would make permanent the credit for corporate research and development....

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ report shows how the debt ceiling negotiation were conducted and the process that made it possible to reach an agreement since the State of the Union address by president Biden on February 7, 2023. It started with Biden getting unanimity right on the floor of Congress during his speech about protecting Medicare and Social Security. The Republican strategy was to pass the legislation on spending that did not specify where cuts were to be made yet used 2022 spending levels with a 1% increase. The deal was to be for three years and passed the spending bill with an increase inthe debt ceiling. Till that time the Democrats decided to not enter negotiations.  Biden and McCarthy then had to choose who would represent their side in the long negotiation process that lay ahead till June 5. Progressive Democrats called for invoking the 14th Amendment that allows the government to continue functioning and pay its bills. Biden chose not to take that route. Respect for the other side, a prepared script are an important point in negotiations. To get results something even more important is essential flexibility and a plan, Plan B. Trust began to develop between McCarthy and Biden. Biden and McCarthy did not any time engage in acrimonious description of the other side. At one point when Biden was in Hiroshima for the G7 meetings Ricchetti on the Biden side and Graves on the Republican side began to feel the frustration. Biden decided to fly home early from Hiroshima. He was constantly in touch with his negotiators Steve Ricchetti, a trusted aide, and a cabinet official the Budget Director Shalanda Young. Graves a long time trusted adviser of McCarthy headed the negotiations for McCarthy.  Shalanda Young and Garrett Graves are both from Louisiana and Graves says he used to work out with Young's dad in the same area. This had a positive effect. It also reduced the tensions in the negotiations so that it could be said this was the calmest negotiation from either side that has been seen in the US  for a long time and bodes well for America's future and for its people, far beyond any concessions made by either party.  Biden made clear at the outset what he could accept without leaving it hidden- he would agree to some work requirements, he would not agree to work requirements for Medicaid. Others in the Democratic party conveyed how distraught they were with efforts to impose stringent requirements for federal food aid during a cost of living crisis when the Republican positions ruled out any new taxes on the wealthiest Americans. In the end Republicans agreed to keep spending limits for 2023 for two more years into 2025 when they would be increased by 1%. Democrats offered to cut (Income Tax) Internal Revenue Service (IRS) spending to increase IRS staffing from $80 billion to $70 billion. Biden said "nobody got everything they wanted." It would have to be passed in Congress with the support of moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans, with members holding extreme positions among Republicans and Democrats opposing. The two parties coming together after a long time to meet the real challenges ahead for the American people. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Healthcare, climate change, pensions and social benefits, are three issues uppermost in the minds of German voters. Three million new young voters most of them only about 2 years old when Merkel started 16 years in office, look for change. They are well informed and for these young voters climate change is the most important issue. DW.com shows three voters and how they plan to vote. One voter has cast a mail in ballot for The Greens party. The second voter will vote for the Greens. Both because of climate change concerns. The third voter Thurid says her mother is a geriatric nurse and is not vaccinated. She is vaccinated but had talks with her mother and understands her worries about vaccination. She will vote for the Free Democrats because they oppose compulsory vaccination. The three leading parties for young voters are the Greens party, the Free Democrats, followed by the Social Democrats all in the range of 16-18% of support. The Greens have sent out 2 million brochures to voters. Out of 60 million voters in a German population of 80  million, 3 million is only 5% of the vote. What makes a difference is that it is consistent with the general direction of voters young and old, all looking for change in Germany as the CDU party attracts only about 20% or one fifth of German voters. Social Democrats Scholz is way ahead of Christian Democrats Laschet in how voters view each candidate. Will German voters be well informed enough to make a decision based on their desire for change after 16 years of Merkel or will the CDU bringing back in the last days of the campaign the old fears that the communist Left party would somehow find its way into the government using the Greens as a way in- this is a question for German voters. In1994 during the Cold War with Soviets Kohl used this to keep the Social Democrats out and Greens out and formed a coalition with the FDP. Yet today Merkel has grown close to both Russia and China and away from the Western alliance in a way that was unimaginable under Adenauer who helped build the new Federal Republic of Germany after the war. Merkel refuses to even immediately accept a call from a new US president Biden, American president who is closest in style and temperament to Harry Truman who faced off the Soviets in Berlin in 1948.  The FDP opposes a wealth tax or any form of taxes in which the wealthier pay a fair share of what is needed to build crumbling infrastructure in Germany neglected in the Merkel years. In Germany social and economic disparities have grown during the pandemic with poverty increasing during the pandemic as has happened throughout Europe and the world. The US is already committing to increase taxes for the upper incomes. This is where voters have a choice- do nothing with infrastructure, health or climate change or do something by increasing taxes. The choice is now before the German people.  With this question comes a choice for western civilization, with the recent election in the US, and two elections in Germany and then France. Will it look with optimism to the future or will it huddle up in a deeply cautious and slightly pessimistic view of the world that is embedded in Angela Merkel's cautious vision that ended up only responding to crises- some self inflicted as in migration policy, and even self inflicted in tackling euro problems created in the euro currency's faulty design. In fiscal policy as in migration policy Merkel has reversed her position- by supporting European solidarity. Will Germans vote for optimism or never ending caution? Are lessons learned?     ...