LyrArc Article Gist
The major provisions of the Republican House healthcare bill that passed by a vote of 217-213 are- 1. To help people buy insurance coverage the bill offers $2000 to $4000 a year, upto $14,000 a year in credits based mainly on age, reducing them for families making $150,000, individuals making $75,000. 2.  Under the Affordable Care Act insurers cannot charge older Americans more than 3 times for same coverage they offer to younger people, the new bill makes this 5 times. This would increase premiums for older Americans and reduce it for younger Americans. This is the most controversial part of the bill. Older Americans supported the Republican party in the presidential election. 3. The new bill ends Medicaid as an open ended entitlement and places this on a budget with cuts of $880 billion over 10 years. 4. To mollify conservative Republicans a provision allows state to opt out some provisions of the ACA that requires minimum benefits such as maternity care and emergency services. It retains coverage for pre-existing conditions to mollify moderate Republicans. The bill provides states with $138 billion over 10 years to subsidize premiums, provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, mental healthcare and drug addiction. 5. The bill removes the taxes imposed under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on high income people of about $300 billion over 10 years by repealing a payroll tax increase and tax on investment income. This bill and the ACA offer 2 competing visions on healthcare, both bills passed only by a margin of 4-5 votes in the House. The ACA overlooked the impact on premiums causing discontent among middle income Americans. The new bill lets premiums rise for older Americans in order to keep premiums down for other Americans. This shows the many tradeoffs involved and choices being made, and the lack of a consensus on the issue of healthcare in the U.S., becoming a highly politicized issue instead of the way it is treated in western Europe.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Workers aid legislation passes in the U.S. House of Representatives 286-138 in June 2015.

LyrArc Article Gist
The New York Times editorial page on the day following the passage of the second bailout or rescue plan of $700 billion in the Senate after it was voted down in the House of Representatives. It points out that the bailout bill does little to prevent a wave of foreclosures which the NYT estimates at six million people expected to default in the rest of this year and 2009. It faults lenders unwillingness to reduce the loan balances amount. At a Congressional hearing for the Hope for Homeowners program in which the governmet wold insure upto $300 bilonin new affordable loans for troubled borrowers if the lenders voluntarily refinance delinquent mortgages by reducing loan balances to 90% of the homes' current market value, lending banks were lukewarm about taking these losses in exchange for bigger losses in foreclosures. These lenders include Wels Fargo, Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup. The FDIC's Sheila Barr has also advocated reducing loan balances in her proposal for tackling the housing crisis presented after the Bear Stearns crisis. She is taking this approach to banks that like IndyMac were taken over by FDIC. But the numbers are not large letters were sent to 28,000 delinquent borrowers of IndyMac recently to reduce loan balances. This is a serious problem and either Congress and Treasury are leaving this problem to the next administration taking office 3 months from now as there is no real consensus on this issue even today or they are missing the impact this has in dropping home price values even further in neigborhoods across the nation as foreclosures drive prices down even further compounding the problem. For the financial institutions it would appear that they are letting this drag out because their capital is at frighteningly low levels and taking losses at one time is harder than taking the foreclosure losses dragged out over 1-3 years and they are also looking for a way in which they can let the government bear the burden of losses as the crisis intensifies which can make sense from the point of view of each institution. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal on September 29, 2008, Sheila Barr told Congress this month that in recent years troubled loan portfolios have yielded about 32% of book value, compared with more than 87% for loans in which the borrower is current. These are strong statistics in favor of lenders taking an informed decision to lower loan balances voluntarily with some government help along the way but the fact that this is not happening leads one to think that something is falling between the cracks, initial lender reluctance to take losses through voluntary balance reduction at the time of Bear Stearns crisis given taxpayer reluctance and lack of government initiative to help lenders in doing this, sort of what Martin Feldstein suggested in a series of articles during the time before and after the Bear Steans crisis. And then as the credit crisis worsened with collapse of Lehman, WaMu, Freddie, Fannie and Wachovia in September 2008 fear gripping the markets and LIBOR interbank lending rate at close to 8%, banks gripped by the fear prevailing in the market, frozen practically about any steps other than preserving their hammered capital, and reluctant to take losses which would further impair their capital. Also in the WSJ Sept 8, on help for homeowners, Deutsche Bank estimates 40% of homeowners or about 20 million households will owe more than their home is worth by the time the housing market stabilizes. This will lead to some homeowners making the rational decision as Martin Feldstein argued to walk away from their homes, leading to more foreclosure losses for th banks. This article Rescue Includes Steps to Help Borrowers Keep Homes by Ruth Simon also has some information that confirms the NYT editorial. An analysis it says of 144 mortgage modifications by the Massachusetts Attorney General's office found that none reduced mortgage balances and onoly a handful reduced monthly payments. Even with interest rate reductions, the study showed borrrowers wound up paying more because of missed paymmets penalties and fees. Another study by Credit Suisse mentioned in the same article points out that the percentage of borrowers who were behind 6 months after loan modifications dropped to 17% when lenders reduced the loan balances and 13% when mortgage companies froze the interest rate of adjustable rate mortgages. A bigger problem is the effect on consumption, if 40% of homeowners end up owing more to the bank than their home is worth as Deutsche Bank estimates, combined with higher unemployment and higher parttime employment, by the time things stabilize. And this is the big looming problem for a new administration in January even if the bailout plan passes Congress this week after revisions and eases the crisis in the credit markets. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Mr Greenspan's libertarian views influenced by a novelist of all people, who is frail just like all of us however intelligent her views may seem, when taken as dogma. Taking his cue from Ayn Rand, who presented collective power as evil force set against the enlightened self-interest of individuals, he proceeded to let this enlightened self-interest run free in an ambitious American experiment devoid of all restraints and common sense. He came in in the days of Reagan and "the evil empire " and the philosophy of Milton Friedman of minimal government intervention in markets, and the view presented by Europeans like Hayek about the economy and freedom. But views become dogma and then defeat common sense. Buffett used common sense and always considered human beings and their frailties as part of the problem as well as the opportunity. Greenspan let these views of his defeat plain common sense and excluded the role of human beings and their weaknesses, in any scheme of things. This undid him and his reputation in the end as far as derivatives like mortgage securities are concerned. Plain common sense required as Buffett did- that as the risks of derivative contracts increased as they practically became the way risk was managed and distributed throughout the economy- to consider their opaqueness, and the way risk was distributed with the failure of one financial firm bringing down the others and the whole economy; with the way each were interdependent and tied up in the risk distribution for the capital that helped run the whole economy. Derivatives were created to soften risk or hedge against investment losses. For example some of the contracts protect debt holders against investment losses on mortgage securites. Their name comes from the fact that their value derives from underlying assets like stocks, bonds and commodities. What they allow to happen is the increase in leveraging and the taking on of more risk as for instance issuing more mortgage debt or corporate debt. As these contracts can be traded they enable companies to take on more risk by spreading the risk among more and more parties. The original issuer of this debt has the sense that somehow, as one expert put it, that by tossing this packaged as a complex derivative type security into outer space this risk would somehow disappear in that cosmos, so that more of the same could be done into infinity. Plain common sense like Buffett's would say otherwise and point to the danger when the whole scheme would get undone by the failure of some big financial firms, as the scheme becomes huge enveloping the economy, the very interdependence would bring down the whole economy. The very complexity of opaquenes of this way of dealing would make it impossible or difficult in the extreme to identify where the risk was lying, and take it out by firm governmental measures in an environment of fear. Requiring days not months for actions to work. This is what has happened. And the crucial weakness of overleveraged investment banking firms which depend on rollng over short term debt was not understood by any of the players, Congress, Greenspan, Summers, Rubin, Cox or Levitt or the quants on Wall Street with their elaborate models. All of these people worked to prevent Congress passing legislation regulating derivatives, or to silence the skeptics in Congress or government agencies as documented by Peter Goodman of the NYT. It was Chase's demand for more collateral of $5 billion to roll over short term debt of Lehman Brothers to pay for the perceived additional risk of overleveraged Lehman at 1:30 ratio of debt to capital, in an extreme risk averse environment, that led to the unraveling of that firm in a matter of days. Good common sense like Buffetts- who described dervatives like the mortgage securities as weapons of mass destruction, that were issued en masse and sent to remote corners of the world including a small town near the North Pole in Scandinavia- considered that this environment of fear of the unknown that brought down the investment banking firms in a matter of days, was also one face of the market. This had to be included in the arithmetic and understanding of the market. He also understood as plain common sense that there are no extraordinary theories and nothing extraterrestrial that will dispense with the basics and exercise of good sense That no matter what fancy name you put on it derivatives derived their strength from being less and less transparent and distribution and interdependence across a vast financial spectrum with higher and higher tight interlinking of financial firms to each other, with all their consequences in an unraveling making the ride down as painful and mass destructive as the joy ride on the way up. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
An indication of how much controversy is becoming part of the drug risk appraisal process, involving the medical journals, the FDA, the Congress, the drug companies, the courts, and independent physicians, and the users of the drugs, with charges thrown back and forth. The information on Avandia comes from Merck's own website and was an attempt to provide more public disclosure of drug studies conducted by the manufacturer.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Reagan Star Wars program which evolved into the Missile Defense Program is the largest Pentagon program costing upwards of $110 billion. Report in the NYT of how some government civil servants with the help of allies in Congress helped defense contractors even when the parts expenditures could not be justified, Senator Stevens of Alaska and Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi and their staff are mentioned as allies.

LyrArc Article Gist
Senators in the US Congress, Rubio and Schumer, have asked the US government to look into Apple's plans to work with Chinese semiconductor company YMTC. As a result the Commerce Department has placed export restrictions on YMTC. This NYT report looks at the two decade long rise of China and of Apple after Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 and shifted manufacturing to China. When Jobs returned to Apple he found major quality issues at Apple's manufacturing facilities, a demoralized workforce, and financial losses, with CEO Michael Spindler running the company into the ground. Jobs had to start with afresh model for Apple and decided to shift manufacturing to China under the engineering leadership of Tim Cook. Alabama native Cook went to Auburn University for his engineering degree and Duke for his business degree. Cook joined Jobs in 1998 at Apple and for ten years till 2007 the two cut costs, shifted to contract manufacturers and rebuilt Apple with new products, iPod, iPad and the iphone. By not manufacturing Apple avoided quality control issues, and the costs of maintaining inventory. It was Tim Cook who ran operations worldwide, and he gradually built up the manufacturing relationships in China with Foxconn, which makes most of Apple's products in sprawling Chinese factories that employ 20 years later about 3 million Chinese workers. Foxconn was chosen by Apple in 2000 to manufacture the Apple Mac laptop. Before that it was a parts supplier to Apple. Increasingly Apple relied on Foxconn to make its new products including the iPhone. Both companies growth relied on the manufacturing of Foxconn to the point where Apple was dependent on Foxconn and had intertwined its operations with Foxconn in China. Today the whole relationship is being called into question after two decades in which American workers suffered the effects of the outshoring of manufacturing jobs. It should be noted that though Mr. Trump raised the issue of manufacturing exclusively in China with Apple, the Trump administration did little to change the practices of the company that pioneered this type of massive manufacturing role for China. That surrendered the entire supply chain to foreign suppliers in the interest of cutting costs and maintaining huge profit margins, with which it financed an array of new products and reached $1 trillion in sales from $10 billion, hundredfold increase over 2 decades. American workers and families for the first time in American history got very little from this Cook-Jobs project. American infrastructure in communities that would have been supported by American factories including the services and infrastructure in communities financed through local taxes, a practice throughout the Industrial Revolution in the US, was sharply disrupted over 2 decades. It caused a rupture in social relations and increased inequality in the US, and defunded infrastructure that comes with manufacturing.  It is the task of the Biden administration to now correct what Mr. Trump simply talked about but never induced or required Apple to do- lead the resurgence of American manufacturing, and make its major investments in the US, invest in its workers and families, invest in America. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The world is too dependent on one semiconductor manufacturer, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, TSMC. Companies in Taiwan make 65% of the dollar value of the world's chips. How did this happen? It poses a threat to the US and to the world economy. Finally the US is making an effort to correct this. The European Union already has plans to produce 20% of the world's next generation chips in 2030. Intel plans $20 billion investment for 2 chip factories in the US. Only months earlier this report in WSJ says Intel president Bob Swan was giving more contracts to TSMC for next generation chips.  It shows how much the pandemic has changed views on supply chain security. Intel ousted Mr. Swan for missteps in relying too much on TSMC as this dangerous policy became evident during the pandemic. Such was the culture that existed before the pandemic on supply chains, on investment allocation, and related issues. As a single semiconductor factory can cost $20 billion, the Biden administration is getting involved with Congress to rebuild America's semiconductor industry and independent supply chain. TSMC is built on subsidies from Taiwan government. Morris Chang founded TSMC in 1987 after studying at MIT and working 30 years at Texas Instruments. At founding half of the investment for TSMC came from Taiwan government. The US to rebuild will require the government to support the chip industry in many ways. In this sense the US manufacturers who ceded manufacturing to TSMC were shortsighted- AMD, Intel, Qualcomm Apple. They without realizing it built the model on which TSMC would thrive and invest and grow. Take just one example- to meet Apple's first order TSMC spent $9 billion with 6000 people working round the clock to build a factory in 11 months. Yes Apple did not have to worry about chip manufacturing and quality by contracting it out. Yet over the years it was ceding the manufacture of the most important chips in its products to an exclusive supplier. It was also ceding away the technologies that went with it. Americans were told not to care by the best universities and professors, by economic departments and scientific educational institutions for two decades leading to the situating facing America today. Meanwhile Taiwan is supporting its chip industry even further as it relies on the chip industry to provide protection in its struggle to maintain its independence from China. A situation no American manufacturer understands or had planned to create, but is now left to the Biden administration and president Biden to solve. After twenty years of unchecked capital allocation and investments by the leaders of American manufacturing based on an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the role of manufacturing and manufacturing technologies in the life of America since its founding two hundred years ago, president Biden faces the task of restoring confidence in America. And this at the time of a pandemic that has taken hundreds of thousands of lives.      ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Xi Jinping is seen in this WSJ report as putting China on a course as a competitor of the US compared to other leaders such as Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin, yet these prior leaders faced a enoromous gap in technology and capital to make it ludicrous. The shrinking of this gap is a result of free markets theory that took no account of the national interests of the US or of the European Union in shifting manufacturing lock stock and barrel to China.  A deeper look at China requires looking at it from putting oneself in China's situation since the period of the 1912 revolution and the 1919 May 4th movement for Science, Modernization and Democracy, to better understand its motives and realities. Jiang Zemin could not pose the question of competing with the US at the time because China's per capita GDP was less than $100 in 1990 and by 2000 during Hu Jintao's term still about a tenth of American per capita GDP.  Even today with population in North America of about 500 million in the economies of US, Canada and Mexico, China lags far behind in technology and capital resources. The Biden administration does not believe in this idea of free markets theory, wrong from the beginning that prevailed incredibly and puzzingly for too long, that it does not matter where you make as long as it is made at the least cost anywhere. It ignored what China and the US under Biden both believe for the US or China that the US is its people and the people is the country. For the US the Civil war itself as Lincoln said in rallying people to the Union, was fought because labor was more important than capital. When looked at the situation in China as stated by Xi at the party congress recently is for having made progress for the overriding goal of Modernization to build a moderately prosperous socialist economy. Huge problems in China remain hidden- ensuring self governance that is honest and accountable to the people, creating jobs and opportunities for hundreds of millions of young people even as supply chains shift after the pandemic in Europe and the US, India and other countries to their home countries for Made In USA, Made in Europe, and Made in India. China is not such a believer in the flawed free markets theory of the non existence of national interest to not grasp the natural aspects of the US and EU, India wanting to build their own manufacturing up again to the fullest. In this situation it also probably realizes the need for a pause to the rampant free markets type of growth that has damaged China's water, air and environment as much as it has damaged the world through climate change. Quality of growth is the new ethos and this gives the US and China, India, the EU and other countries a common frontier to shoot for. The nuclear aspect is also there and managing this well is a common interest for all countries exercizing responsible leadership. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
As the final Republican tax bill is debated in Congress on December 19, 2017, Senator Bob Casey cited the following points from the Joint Committee on Taxation Report on the floor of the Senate.  1. Americans building their hopes that their pay checks in February 2018 will be increasing are in for a big disappointment said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a senior member of the Finance Committee. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimate is that for the 57 million families making less than 100,000 dollars a year the tax cuts in the Republican legislation will either not reduce their taxes or reduce the taxes by about $100 a year. 2. The bill does little for the big tasks facing America of rebuilding failing infrastructure. Senator Casey cited 4500 bridges needing repair or replacement in Pennsylvania alone. It also does little for health care access for middle class families and is likely to lead to 10% increase in health care premiums. Affordability of college and other hurdles of middle class and working class families remain unaddressed.   3. The $9 billion in the estate tax cuts would finance the Children's Health Insurance program which has expired.  4. The $36 billion in tax cuts for corporations comes at a time when corporate profits are at the highest they have been in 15 years, according to Vanguard founder Bogle. He also points out that wages as a percentage of GDP are the lowest in 15 years. The tax cuts in the Republican bill are not likely to correct this imbalance.  5. The share of GDP of people making more than one million dollars in 1980 was 11%, this is up now in 2017 to 20%. This has led to questions about the wisdom of these tax cuts which disproportionately benefit a very small percentage of Americans who do not need these tax cuts, and come with significant sacrifices for the middle class in terms of what is available in public services, and the cost to their children as infrastructure and access to health and education is made more distant because of a growing U.S. debt from this tax cut. The big problem then with this bill is that it further damages intergenerational mobility in the U.S., undermining the foundation of a democratic society. Damage has already happened in the past three decades as Federal Reserve chairman Janet Yellen pointed out at a conference on Economic Opportunity and Inequality on Oct. 17, 2014, saying-"The past several decades have seen the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality following the Great Depression." This is why there is substantial agreement in the media from the Wall Street Journal's Greg Ip to Krugman in the New York Times that the bill fails to correct a harmful trend, and goes further in the wrong direction for a democratic society.       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This Washington Post analysis of the Republican tax bill gives an exceptional view of the bill's impact and provisions. This is the first major change to the tax laws since 1986. The size of the bill is $1.5 trillion, with the Joint Committe on Taxation projection that the bill will increase tax revenues over a decade by $500 billion, meaning that it will cost $1 trillion being added to the deficit. What the bill does: 1. It offers a permanent tax cut to corporations by reducing the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Industries benefiting the most are mining, real estate, technology, manufacturing. 2. The individual tax cuts expire in 2025. They are skewed to disproportionately help highest income Americans, much less lower income Americans and much more highest income Americans compared to high income Americans. In this sense it is skewed in a an unusual way to the highest earning Americans- a sort of Trump effect in place. The top 1% get a tax break of $51,140 in 2019, middle income people earning about $100,000 get about $1000 a year in 2019, tax payers earning around $50,000 about $380, and those earning less than $25,000 about $60 a year in 2019. Taxpayers earning about 150,000 get about $2000 a year tax cut. (Tax Policy Center) 3. The basic assumption is that tax cuts are revenue neutral if there is economic growth and most of that growth comes from corporations investing in growth. The problem as Greg Ip points out in the Wall Street Journal is that countries trying thsi approach in the past such as Britain have not seen such growth materialize. Corporate profits are the highest in 15 years as percentage of GDP, according to Vanguard founder Bogle, and are now 20% of GDP compared 11% in 1980. If corporations did not invest with this level of profits how much additional investment is going to happen, ask critics, especially as demand drives growth and wages are not boosted under this plan.  4.  Because the bill's changes to current law makes it likely that 13 million less Americans will be insured over a decade- from fewer people signing up for Medicaid and on exchanges for Affordable Care Act- it will hurt lower income Americans. Skewing at both ends of the income spectrum of this type is rare in American history particularly in the twentieth century after the Depression of the 1930's, and poses risks for social cohesion, making it unpopular with most Americans. A CBS News poll taken Dec 3-5 shows 53% of all Americans opposed, only 35% support the tax bill just passed in Congress.  5. Then why did Republicans do this? Republicans needed a legislative success after failure to repeal the Obama Affordable Care law. This pressure led to passage with Republicans probably aware that this is temporary tax reform requiring a real effort by both parties working together after the midterm elections in 2018 and as the presidential election approaches in 2019.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
President Xi Jinping of China faces domestic criticism about his handling of the critical trading relationship with the U.S. that has given China access to technology and the U.S. market in its development drive. The trade truce with the U.S. reached following a meeting of Xi and Trump at the G-20 meeting in Buenos Aires, was presented in Chinese media as a positive step withut mention that Mr. Trump has set a 90 deadline for the talks and appointed a experienced trade negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, to head negotiations. Also agreed is an effort to focus the talks on the 142 contentious issues the U.S. has put forward.

Experts at the Chinese University of Hong Kong say Mr. Jinping will need to show results to stay on beyond the customary two terms as president because for China the  trading relationship with the U.S. is essential to grow its economy with access to the U.S. market.

LyrArc Article Gist
John Lipsky, a deputy managing director of the IMF from the U.S., gives reasons why the U.S. should support IMF reforms that increase representation of emerging market countries in the G-20. Lipsky was at the IMF 2006-2011.

LyrArc Article Gist
US president Biden's $2 trillion infrastructure spending plan is being compared to the New Deal infrastructure plans of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930's. FDR was preceded by Republican administrations under Hoover and other presidents who followed policies that can be compared to the Reagan administration policies when public sector spending was not seen to be as efficient as private sector spending. By the time of the economic collapse in the 1930's it had become clear that only the federal government could save the country in the depression. During the pandemic and collapse of the health systems it was clear that only the federal government could save the country. It is now also evident that infrastructure building led by the government can rebuild America. In the 1930's and during other periods in American history such as the building of the Erie Canal and other public sector infrastructure projects in the 19th century it was the federal government that led the way to building America. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Senate passes a motion that allows the chamber to proceed with a debate on a health care bill. The motion passed 51-50 with Vice President Mike Pence casting the deciding vote. Republican Senators Collins and Murkowski voted against the motion. This report in the WSJ says this sets in motion a process in which debate will take place and amendments will be made. It is not clear what shape the bill will take. Under the process used only a simple majority is needed in the Senate, yet this allows for many amendments to be made.  Only hours after this motion passed by one vote, a bill replacing major parts of the Affordable Care Act failed to pass 57 votes against and 43 in favor. Senator John McCain who arrived in Washington from Arizona following brain tumor surgery, delivered strong criticism of the way the Republican healthcare bill was rushed through allowing very little debate. Experts have commented on the way the bill was rushed through with a thin majority for passage, with very little debate, first by Democrats in 2009 and now in the House by Republicans. With the same pattern now followed in the Senate by Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate. A backup bill would remove just the individual and employer mandates and a tax on medical devices- the elements Republicans agree on, if no majority can be put together for the healthcare bill. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
George Will lists the shortcomings of Romney and Gingrich, as U.S. Republican presidential candidates in 2012. Gingrich is the worse candidate, says Will. Gingrich was paid $1.6 million by Freddie Mac, for services as "a historian." His response was to say "If you put people in jail," look at "the politicians who profited from" Washington's environment. He criticized government housing agency Freddie Mac for its role in the housing crisis, and at the same time profited as a lobbyist for Freddie. This shows his personal record and lack of conviction about the need for integrity in government officials. Conservatism, says Will, is about understanding that man does not fully understand the complexities of the world around him. It stands in opposition to man saying that he has grasped these complexities and assuming a hubrisitic attitude. Gingrich with his fervor for the latest idea, is the opposite of what conservatism stands for, says Will. Will sees Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman as better candidates than Romney or Gingrich. Presidential debates don't test what is needed to perform presidential duties and have become ridiculously important. Rick Perry's Texas record as two term governor, and his skepticism and distaste for Washington and Wall Street, give him assets that could prove to be vital for the job of president. Huntsman's positions on issues are closer to the conservative approach to government than Romney's. Will says it is important that Republicans don't give an Obama running as a Harry Truman did in 1948, against Congress, the one thing needed to win - someone who voters have a distaste for....

LyrArc Article Gist
Arguments that are expected to be used by both sides before the U.S. Supreme Court on the health care law. At the heart of this is the 1942 decision, Wickard v. Filburn, on the limits of federal power. Mr. Filburn, was an Ohio farmer who questioned a 1938 federal law that imposed a penalty on every extra bushel of wheat on his farm beyond the stipulated amount. The decision was unanimous and went against Filburn. At issue is whether the federal government can impose a penalty on individuals for not buying health insurance. Justice Robert Jackson wrote in that case: "Even if appellee's activity be local, and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress, if it exerts a substantial economic effect on commerce." The Obama administration's argument in its brief is that the decision of individuals not to buy insurance, like that of Filburn to plant that extra bushel, has larger effects beyond the local one and serious consequences for the whole country- it raises insurance rates of people in states across the country and makes hospitals bear the burden of caring for these uninsured people. For over 50 years the Supreme Court has largely supported the idea behind the Filburn decision, except in 1995 and 2000- these two decision invalidated laws made about guns near schools and violence against women. The Court ruled that the activities were local and noncommercial and beyond the federal power to regulate interstate commerce....

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the Economist Report on India focusses on politics, and the implementation of a state devolution of powers and finances. This is the big idea referred to by the prime minister's Economic Advisor, Arvind Subramanium. The Modi administration is providing the direction at the federal level for a development push at the state level. The states will now get 42% of federal tax revenus and with state revenues this increases to 62% of total revenues, giving the states leverage to compete for talent, capital, and investment for economic growth. This element of competition will be strong to attract different industries and foreign investment similiar to the experience of Gujarat and now pushed at all levels of government. It also introduces the idea of "competitive federalism" as India is a country with states at various stages of development from Gujarat to Punjab and Bihar. The new NITI Aayog replaces the old command economy Planning Commission from the Congress administrations since 1947, and supports "competitive federalism" as a think tank that provides advice and help to the centre and states. Rising aspirations in India helps the Modi government with voters who are incresingly urban and better educated, looking for jobs. The election in Delhi suggests voters will always be open to new ideas to fight corruption and bring better delivery of public services, and wins by parties offering positive change for improvement will always be a part of India's democracy, introducing competition in politics for who can do a better job at the regional level. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Once again the unemployment statistics lie- women's unemployment at 5.7% in 2014 does not reflect the real story. The number of women employed in 2014 is 55.2%, worse than in Oct. 2010. Many women looking for work give up and drop out of the work force, these women have not vanished, they are simply not being counted in the frequently quoted unemployment statistic. This spells bad news for Democrats in the midterm 2014 elections- today the households making less than 30,000 are almost evenly split on whether they vote Republican or Democratic 43% to 46%, according to polls by Pew Research Center, compared to the 2012 presidential election figures of 35% to 63%. Interestingly the reverse is true for voters with incomes over $100,000 where voters are about evenly split for Republican or Democratic choices for Congress. In 2012 presidential elections the Republicans had a 10 percentage point lead for this income group. Democratic advisors Carville and Greenberg advise not even mentioning the word "recovery" for the U.S. midterm 2014 Congressional elections. About 6.7 million people had multiple jobs in 2010, the figure now is 7 million. About 2.62 million people say they had part time jobs because they could not find full time work in April 2014 up from 2.57 million in Oct. 2010. A separate piece in the WSJ May 20, 2014, shows 10 million U.S. households under water on mortgages and another 10 million households having less than 20% equity in their homes in 2014....

LyrArc Article Gist
Frank Rich of the NYT thinks Obama's problem is not the GOP which is losing public support very quickly as the CBS/New York TImes poll shows, or the mortgage rescue plan and the shaping of new priorities in his address to the joint session of Congress which have increased in popularity for a people nervous about the economy, but the increasing unpopularity of the banks and financial institutions. His plan for financial institutions lacks the clarity and direction of his other efforts, says Rich. And Geithner who was protegeof the old boys Greenspan, Rubin and Summers who got the country into this disaster, is not the man who can convince the people. Therein lies the President's problem. He has chosen these people to come up with the solution to the banking crisis, and he has to sell this hugely unpopular solution with his advisors too timid and too complicit in the origins of this problem, that they have not been able to craft an effective plan. And the people who run these banking institutions are still running these institutions, and the people who run these auto companies are still running these auto companies, something that is hugely unpopular with the people as the CBS/New York Times poll shows. Only a new management, a new board, and a fresh clean beginning, and a convincing plan, would convince the people that another big bailout of $750 billion in banking "asset purchases" on top of the previous $700 billion bailout is going to work....