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.


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....
WSJ Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Dan Balz, chief correspondent of The Washington Post, says the stakes have hugely escalated in the 2016 presidential election with the rhetoric on immigrants and Muslims entering the U.S. following terrorist attacks in France and California offered by Donald Trump. He cites experts who point out that establishment voices are being ignored as a section of the American public supports Trump's opinions. An earlier article in the Post points out that about 30% of Republicans in a PPP poll support Trump's views, and 21% unsure. Other polls show American who are older, working class and not college educated support Trump in large numbers, compared to the support from college educated and higher income people who support Sanders on the Democratic side and who oppose American intervention in the Middle East- both Trump and Sanders supporters preferring to focus on problems at home than involvement in overseas entanglements.
Georgetown Law Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
US Trade Representative Lighthizer in the Report on China's Entry into WTO sees this as a mistake in the policy of president Clinton. Clinton has said that was a mistake. David Sacks raised this issue in a podcast with Larry Summers, an economist who was deputy to Robert Rubin and Deputy Treasury Secretary, then Treasury Secretary succeeding Rubin in 1999. Clinton on the advice of Rubin and Summers set up the framework for China to join the World Trade Organization without the safeguards and the setup that would prevent it using state capitalism and subisidies to build its own economy with exports, to ally with American corporations to support the outshoring of almost the entire industrial base of the US. Shocking as it sounds this has happened, had happened by 2016, when Donald Trump with the advice of USTR Lighthizer took the first steps to reverse this with Tariff policy, which was supported by president Biden, and continues in its new phase under DJT in 2025. Rubin and Summers had supported deregulation of financial markets and removal of the Glass Steagall Act by 1999. This was to led to the financial crisis of 2009 that was to be one of three body blows to the American working and middle class. The others China entering WTO without safeguards that led to deindustrializing US and loss of its manufacturing base, loss of 5 million jobs, tens of thousands of factories. And the third was the pandemic. “ . . .it seems clear that the United States erred in supporting China’s entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China’s embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime” 2017 USTR Report to Congress on China’s WTO ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
During the primaries Trump appealed to blue collar voters of a white working class that felt neglected by leaders and policies of both parties that did not seem to work for ordinary people. Having caught onto this early long before Republican candidates, Trump registered a series of wins in the Republican primaries. He continued this theme in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on July 21, 2016, saying- "The forgotten men and women of our country- people who work but no longer have a voice: I am your voice." The idea was to couple this with the theme of law and order and put perception of Hillary Clinton as part of the rigged system of the past that Trump would change, with Clinton's legacy described in terms of "death, destruction, terrorism and weakness." As a change agent Trump described his entering the political arena in terms of coming into this election only to help blue collar people "so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves." The two themes for the rest of the election season- law and order, and blue collar lives- and who can best defend them a traditional Democratic politician with a fighting spirit for traditional Democratic values, or a blustery newcomer adept with slogans and the public mood and ironically representing the Democratic values of representing the working class to become the  Republican nominee, with the law and order theme thrown in. The voter or independent listening in to all this will hopefully ask what all this means. As the WSJ, July 19, 2016, pointed out in a recent look at economc policies under the two candidates- on Glass Steagall Act being reinstated to increase safety of the banking system that caused many of today's problems through the 2008 financial crisis both Trump and Clinton are similiar, on opposing trade agreements similiar except that Trump's bluster is a riskier approach, on infrastructure building similiar with Clinton's $275 billion plan spelled out out for source of financing and Trump's unclear as to source of financing. On immigration the candidates are different, on the minimum wage which impacts low income people Clinton supports $15 minimum wage and Trump has not taken a stand. On ISIS and the Middle East Clinton is in reality a hawk and not much difference in the candidates, on law and order more chance of divisions in the country with Trump than Clinton. Overall for the working class and blue collar voter his life will take a decade or more to rebuild, with both candidates commiting to go in that direction. And the bluster and ads to come- just that.  ...
Washington Post Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This is an indepth article on Donald Trump's financial holdings, looking at the debt that Trump has built up in his real estate dealings, by Susanne Craig of the NYT. To get a detailed look of this the NYT inquiry into the holdings engaged RedVision Systems, a national property information firm to search publicly available data. Much of Trump's business is shrouded in mystery. But it is well known that Trump has used debt to build his business in a way that is not considered good practice in business, having led to three bankruptcies. Trump says he "is the king of debt." And "he loves debt." The recovery of real estate values during a rescue effort for the country's financial system also helped Trump tackle debt in a way that was not available to other entrepreneurs who suffered from the oil price collapse- one of them McClendon also used debt aggressively and his business collapsed leading to suicidal car crash. You can love excessive debt only if the government supports you with some sort of financial guarnatee misplaced, or you are lucky to get away with it- just ask McClendon. The irony is that the rescue of the financial system led to the low interest rates that hurt savings of the middle and working class, and the lack of help to Main Street in the home foreclosure crisis also hurt the same people disproportionately. The Obama administration policies in this regard rescued the very same business interests such as the New York real commercial estate symbolized by Trump, that are now appealing to those hurt as president Obama worked to let the financial system recover. The intention was never to support excessively overleveraged banks or overleveraged real estate built on debt, but in reality this is what happened. A nation cannot run its financial affairs in this manner of overleveraging to extract high profits that an investment bank such as Lehman or Goldman Sachs does, or a real estate company such as Trump's does- if regulators let them do this. Normally after the financial crisis of such dimensions that it shook the world economy in 2008-2009 leading to fears of a collapse as happened in the 1930's, the same faces would not still be there. But this is a strange period or a transition period where things are being sorted out, and the same faces Blankfein at Goldman Sachs and Trump in New York commercial real estate are with us.  And though the bashing of Goldman Sachs connection to Clinton is evident in the campaigns of Trump and Sanders, the bashing of Trump real estate and finance companies with its overleveraging and bankruptcies is evident in the campaign of Clinton against one posing as a representative of the working class. John Paulson who benefitted by shorting mortgage securities that caused the financial crisis of 2008 is on Trump's top economic advisory team, including the hedge funds and financial interests on Wall Street that Trump is saying support Clinton. No one, not the NYT or WSJ, can answer this, its just the paradox of today's situation. Hillary Clinton can say she has learned her lesson, with her Methodist upbringing and her own supporters such as Robert Reich and others, and break with the past especially as it in no way contributes to her success as president, not one bit. In fact rebuilding the middle class and infrastructure require entirely different connections and views on life, a different imagination.  Trump has billions of dollars and a real estate business that is so complex that even the NYT and property information firms can only say that in the end it is shrouded in mystery. Companies owned by Trump says the NYT from this inquiry have debt of $650 million. Other Trump business activities through 3 passive partnerships owe an additional $2 billion. It is a lot easier for Hillary Clinton to put the speech fees behind her as they have little to do with what she is as a Methodist and a proponent of improving women's lives, than it is for Donald Trump- for whom his business is everything that he is including his art of the deal- to reject who he is. ...
Coalition For A Prosperous America Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
It is no surprise what we see in the US today- the loss of the middle class, the unaffordability crisis for education, healthcare, childcare, and poor, broken infrastructure. Over 10 years the US trade deficit with China has led to loss of about 25 million jobs and $250 billion in taxes that support local infrastructure and public services. Where 20% of the people do 80% of the spending, 80% of the people only 20% of spending (Moody's Analytics). This is how the uneven trade led to the destruction of manufacturing centers and communities across the 51 states in America, devastating families and young people. This is no longer Washington's, Lincon's or FDR's land of opportunity. Each $1 billion in additional imports to the US costs 4252 jobs. (CPA) This can be read as how many jobs are being lost in the additional trade of goods when one side is exporting more than the other.  There are three levels of losses. There is also an indirect job loss in the number of jobs created by that one job in manufacturing to serve the needs of these factory families in communities. This can be estimated at 1 job that depends on 1 manufacturing job. Together this means 8500 jobs lost for every $1 billion of goods in a trade deficit. US trade deficit of $295 billion in 2024 with China translates into about 2.5 million jobs lost every year. Over 10 years this is about 20-25 million jobs, enough to decimate America's entire manufacturing capabilities and manufacturing infrastructure, whole communities and towns disappearing or suffering destruction across the country.  With the loss of these jobs comes a third cost, the taxes paid that maintain small town infrastructure and public services like libraries, schools and health centers where these factories are located. At $10,000 in taxes lost per job, for 8500 jobs lost per $1 billion in uneven trade there is a loss of $85 million.  For the $295 billion deficit the US has with China this loss adds up to $25 billion per year. Over 10 years this means taking out this much in local infrastructure and public services like libraries, schools and health centers worth $250 billion.  ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration's proposed budget for fiscal 2013- for the year beginning Oct. 1, 2012- shows the budget deficit for the year at over $1 trillion. It shows new revenue of $1.7 trillion over 10 years mostly from ending the Bush period tax cuts on families earning more than $250,000 a year, restoring the estate tax to the 2009 level and limiting subsidies for oil and gas companies. It proposes raising the tax rate on dividends from 15% to as much as 39.6%, for households earning more than $250,000 a year. This measure is expected to generate $206 billion over 10 years. The budget also offers "principles" for future tax reform by proposing the Buffett rule replace the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was not indexed for inflation so it has the weakness of putting more middle class taxpayers into AMT, leading to temporary solutions by Congress. The Buffett rule would have people earning more than $1 million pay a tax rate of at least 30%. Many wealthy Americans like Mitt Romney paid lower taxes using deductions to lower tax rates- Romney's tax disclosures show he paid effective tax rate of 14%. The White House says the budget will reduce the deficit by $3 trillion over 10 years through the new taxes, and small changes to Medicare and Medicaid and other spending cuts. This is in addition to the $1 trillion in spending cuts agreed to in a deficit reduction agreement in 2011 between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. The budget proposal proposes investment in education and transportation projects of $137 billion, and continuing through Dec. 2012, a tax break for businesses to increase investment. It includes mandatory spending of $2.7 billion for new community college programs, $6 billion to modernize schools, and $1.8 billion to make homes more energy efficient. It also increases the resources of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CFTC (two agencies overseeing the banks), $26 million for a new Interagency Trade Enforcement Center to counter unfair trade practices, and cuts U.S. postal delivery to 5 days a week. The result is a program designed to be balanced in terms of economic fairness, making modest investments in the future for education and energy, continuing policies to stimulate growth, and extending the date for bringing the deficit under control to 2018 instead of 2014 as planned earlier....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Labor in the U.S. stood firm in its opposition to bills in Congress granting fast track trade authority and promoting the TPP trade agreement. The bill failed to clear the House of Representatives as labor unions lobbied hard against the legislation. For the first time public sector unions of teachers, firefighters, and other service workers actively worked with industrial labor unions. This is a result of a realization in labor unions that the decline of communities with the closing of plants reduces the demand for public sector workers, and reduces the revenues of cities leading to cuts in services for firefighters, teachers. The low wages in manufacturing with globalization, also reduces the support of factory workers for higher wages for teachers, firefighters and other public sector workers. Also adding to support for workers is the realization that the investment in infrastructure is now a higher priority, as experts say most of the gains in trade are already behind us. A general feeling that the decline in U.S. manufacturing is not good for the country, the difficulty of competing with countries which do not enforce rules for fair practice and treatment of workers, and a general sense that the lowering of wages in manufacturing is both hurting the middle class and increasing inequality, also have created support in the media....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
February 1, 2011, the day when a million demonstrators were expected to come out on Tahrir Square in Cairo, the Washington Post makes a call for a democratic transition in Egypt. The Post says unfortunately the debate has been affected by considerable misinformation and mistaken ideas. It singles out three for correction. The protestors have no platform, that the radical Islamists are likely to assume power, and that the US has little power to influence the change. The April 6 Movement is a principal organizer of the protests and is run by young people. The party of Mohamed El-Baradei and the Muslim Brotherhood have joined together with the young protestors movement to have a common platform. And in a country where an estimated two thirds of the population is under 30 years, the older leaders in the El-Baradei party and the Muslim Brotherhood are deferring to the younger leaders. The movement is middle class, centrist, and its main grievance is the yearning for liberty. Eliott Abrams, the deputy national security advisor to former President George W. Bush, and Mr Bush on C-SPAN, have come out in favor of the Egyptian people's struggle for freedom. See Abrams column in the Post. The Muslim Brotherhood is unlikely to win anything more than a minority of seats in any elections, because the overwhelming influence in the protests is secular, middle class, and seeks the democratization and modernization of Egypt. For the American people this is an opportunity to support the aspirations to freedom and a modernized economy for the Egyptian people....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A new West Coast Model is emerging with ballot measures in the states of Washington, California and Oregon. The model is to make up for decades of faulty income distribution which favored tech communities in west coast states leaving behind people from minority communities and the working class outside tech hubs such as San Francisco, San Jose and Seattle. During this period budgets for education and healthcare, social services and essential infrastructure suffered as budgets were squeezed for local governments. Minimum wage also lagged behind and communities struggled to keep up. Washington votes for a ballot measure that raises the minimum wage to $13.25 statewide and mandate paid sick leave for workers. In California a ballot measure makes permanent an income tax surcharge on millionaires to use these funds for education. In Oregon measure 97 places a gross receipts tax on corporations with annual sales in Oregon over $25 million, raising $3 billion a year for schools, health care and other programs. The California and Washington measures are likely to pass, Oregon uncertain, say experts. And even in Oregon supporters have learned from the experience to put forward new proposals on the ballot. The Washington measure is supported by Nick Hanauer, and Zach Silk, president of Civic Ventures in Seattle, who say it is essential to put more money in workers wages to increase growth and to bring better lives outside the tech hub areas. Most of the tech booms of the last two decades have not touched the areas outside tech hub metropolitan areas. The conservative approach adopted in Louisiana and Kansas of reducing taxes first and then when holes in state budgets developed to cut education, health and other service expenditures has not worked, and it has led to the backlash in the form of the new West Coast Model, which is expected to be brought up in other states in the east and midwest. The tech hub areas have grown with the boom in tech but this has largely ignored the rural areas, communities just outside of the tech cities, and led to uneven and distorted growth shortchanging the working class and the middle class, and hurting investment in education and healthcare across each state. Bill Whalen, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution conservative think tank ,says that its hard to deny that the balanced growth for all communities across the state has lagged far behind as the tech booms boosted growth in the economies of California, Oregon and Washington. An article in the German online site Zeit on Silicon Valley described this vividly showing how this can happen in communities sitting side by side in the San Jose area, with minority Hispanic communities and working class communties seeing very little of the benefits of growth. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Gerald Seib of the WSJ says president Biden is coming back with new actions to revive the Democratic agenda after a challenging period in the first year. Yesterday's first formal press conference of 2022 gave Biden an opportunity to respond. Why the WSJ, NYT, did not cover on their online edition front pages president Biden's first formal press conference on Jan. 19, after 1 year of the Biden administration, will remain a mystery. With the American press acting this way it did not take much for Germany's DW.com to run the story with the title "Biden's first year weighed down by disappointment," with a thoughtful Biden at the press conference replaced by a picture of Biden staring downwards.  This is only the first year of the Biden administration. Actions are planned to ease the supply chain situation and bottlenecks at ports. Much is made of inflation, Afghanistan, Ukraine, by Republicans assailing the Biden record. President Biden responded to this by asking at the press conference what Republicans are for. On Afghanistan Biden held firm on not investing billions of dollars every week when there is so much need in America and the rest of the world at this time of the pandemic after a failed adventure for 20 years in "a graveyard for empires."  Biden pointed to the bright spots in 2022- vaccination and testing achievements in the face of anti-vax sentiment with 200 million vaccinated, the job creation in the economy with unemployment way down and wage increases by employers, and the $1 trillion in infrastructure spending tackling much needed projects state by state with immediate impact. Rarely has a president faced so many challenges in the first year as Biden pointed out- vaccination drive in the face of the Delta variant and anti-vax sentiment, the Ukraine crisis with a president Truman period like event of the Berlin Wall coming up just potentially around the corner, and efforts to tackle problems left untackled for a generation in infrastructure, for working families and climate change. Scoring on infrastructure spending, one of the three, with the other two for working families and climate change to be tackled in the remaining three years and beyond.  Biden also told the American audience at the press conference that he was reminded of what his father used to tell him- that if all goals are equally important, nothing is important. In saying this he said help for working families through child tax credit, child care assistance, community college education funding, health care costs, climate change investment were priorities for his administration that would be tackled step by step. And he pointed out from the outset of the conference that only one or two senators were blocking the party's plan for children and working families. All 48 other senators were united in the Democratic party behind his plans for workers and families. As were 5 Republican senators who he said he would not disclose because of confidentiality. In that sense president Biden already has the majority he needs in Congress. This is not happening because of the peculiar situation of the 2016 and 2020 elections in the US and also in Europe- the historical problem of administrations of Democrats in US, Social Democrats in Germany, and Labor in Britain having give up on their working class families and middle class roots. Tech revolution and internet has further complicated the situation with economic changes, tech companies not paying taxes normally due, and tech workers shifting to Democrats yet living in a world distant from working class families fracturing social cohesion. This is changing in Germany with Scholz in Germany with the help of the Greens determined to restore the dignity of working class families, for Biden with a similar coalition, and a process underway in Britain as Labor returns to its roots. In essence Biden was saying- the process of unwinding decades of unwise policy that hurt America as a nation and leader of the free world would take time, requiring a patient step by step approach. To bring America closer to its own roots and Jefferson's immortal words of "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Jefferson went on to say in the Declaration that when government becomes destructive of these ends it is the Right of the People to alter it.   ...

Why Nations Fail

New York Times Original article ›
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.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The US Federal Reserve Report on Economic Wellbeing of US Households 2024-May 2025 gives some insights into the well being of American households. It shows food insufficiency households the same in 2023-2025 at 7%. The situation for cost of living remains a concern in 2024 as well as 2025. Retirement savings have improved for many middle class Americans, as confirmed by reports from Fidelity and Vanguard. The people earning less than 25,000 are 19% and about the same in 2024 under Biden as under DJT in 2025. 39% make $100,000 or more and 26% make $50,000 -$100,000. Combining the 19% making less than $25,000 and the 16% making between $25,000 and $50,000 shows about one third of the population under $50,000 living paycheck to paycheck. It would appear that $2000 DJT rebate putting $160 billion out of $550 billion of tariff revenues for 2025-2026  in the hands of 79 million households that make less than $100,000 would go a long way to keep the situation stable with optimism and hope arising from the restructuring of world trade that would bring trillions of dollars of investment into the US from Europe and Asia. A this investment plus domestic investment should bring back jobs and higher incomes to US manufacturing in small towns across America. The rest of $550 billion tariff revenue of $390 billion would go to reducing the deficit which would improve prospects for the economy in 2027 and produce a more resilient economy in 2027-2028. As shown on this page the popular Democratic Governor of Michigan in her op-ed in Washington Post supports strategic tariffs, and supports using the revenue for a check to American workers of $2000 per worker or per worker household and offers to work with the opposite party to get a WIN-WIN for the American People.  In the whole process of trade tariffs it must be remembered when seeing the inconsistent cases of tariff use by this Republican administration that these were special reason situations not aberrations or whimsical. First, it should be borne in mind that behind the appearance of DJT making tariff decisions is a carefully thought out process that took ten years to form under Reagan era Trade Representative Lighthizer who negotiated with Japan, and his deputy Jamieson for 2016-2024, and the economic and capital markets experience of Scott Bessent as Treasury Secretary. The two cases of inconsistent application of tariffs relate to the 50% tariff on India and the reduction of tariffs on China agreement on rare earths, and the imposition of a large tarif on Japan and the EU. In the first instance with India it was intended to give Ukraine breathing room from Russian attacks as Germany steps up its military preparedness and assistance to Ukraine. With both countries it was about saving face important in Asian or any societies and it has achieved it's purpose. Reports show both Indian and Chinese refiners have quietly cut purchases of oil from Russia leading to Russian oil selling at about $20 discount to Brent crude oil. In the case of Japan the quick action to raise tariffs was intended not to get into long drawn negotiations and show serious intent- Japan is known for dragging out negotiations for years if not decades. The same is true for the European Union. With the Swiss it was about a certain disrespect of the US coming from attitudes that Swiss products were somehow superior. Not just in the long run, in 2026-2028 history will show that the effort done right - and it takes effort to get this right- to restructure world trade so that other nations are not siphoning off the benefits and leaving the US to lose its manufacturing and factories is the right one. And taken with courage and sincere desire to create a fair distribution of the benefits of world trade for too long distorted by egregious practices of competitors. It has nothing to do with 2 senators from the 1930's who were from places like the Mountain West in the US, having no concept of world trade, Smoot and Hawley, who under a irresponsible president Hoover got everything wrong. This is a carefully set out plan to evenly balance the benefits of world trade to all nations.   ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Rosa Ines Rivera, a cook at the cafeteria for the Y.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, with 2 small children, describes the protests over the increase by Harvard administration of the premiums charged on health insurance that now take up over 10% of the income. She says she lives in public housing with her parents as she lost her apartment because she is behind on the rent, and now cannot afford to pay the increase in premiums. About 750 workers at Harvard are on strike on this issue. She says dining hall workers want the current pay of $31,193  a year increased to $35,000 to provide a living wage that helps them afford medical care, because of the high cost of living in Boston.  To get some idea of the plight of workers who provide the kind of nutritious meals that a lot of students depend on for healthy living- Rivera says she takes in about $450 a week after taxes, or about $1800, rent is $1150, which leaves $650 for herself and two children for all food, and expenses in Boston. The $4000 in premiums for health insurance would be about 330 per month, leaving her about $320 for food and living expenses with 2 children. Why the need to bring up children in poverty in America, for generation after generation, after putting in a full day of work? ...
The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Simon Jenkins of The Guardian says it is time to clear some of the myths around migrants, tariffs, and NATO and in this way action by the current Republican administration can be a positive step. Jenkins says DJT is moving quickly in the first 100 Days because most presidents get only 2 years to make changes before losing the House or the Senate making legislation difficult to pass. If it appears that things are happening on many fronts too quickly that is just the nature of things under a democratic process where checks and balances mean all three parts of government- executive powers of the president are balanced by powers of Congress and of the Supreme Court. Jenkins points out that action on migrants with the unease about millions of migrants coming in illegally, putting tariff barriers to bring manufacturing back and rebuilding America's forgotten middle class, cutting the bureaucracy and misuse of funds, sending education back to the states, and rethinking NATO bringing Russia back into the community of nations, will have long term positive effects long after the chaotic nature that they appear in the news cycle and the media presentation has passed. He cites China being invited back into the community of nations under Nixon. And today disarmament possible only by working with Russia, when China is moving in the direction of increasing nuclear missiles with trouble spots in Taiwan. He does not mention the sending back of about 1 million people back to Mexico under President Eisenhower in Operation Wetback in 1954, Harry Truman a senator from Missouri who led the effort to cut waste and fraud in government spending in the Second World War, the ED Hirsch graph showing reading comprehension scores of American K-12 headed one way - straight down since the 1960's showing education is failing in the US and needs parents and states to come up with new solutions.   ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
US Universities awakening to the need to reduce costs after making college unaffordable to middle class. NIH says indirect costs are in the range of 60-70% at some elite universities, the proposal would cap this at 15% for all universities for federal funding. The purpose is to reduce administrative costs that are increasing and have universities take a hard look at finances not just increase salaries, hire more and increase prices for students to go to college. The savings generated could be $6.5 billion in this one action alone and some universities need to cut salaries and hire less to bring down their cost structure before a whole generation of young men are deprived of opportunities to go to college. Not everyone can be sent to apprenticeships and not all research needs to be funded. China and India and some European nations will be funding the same research with less. There is a Deepseek moment now not just for AI - for all research.

United States Department of State Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Marco Rubio speaks for the US with profound convictions and long experience in the Florida legislature and the US Senate, and as akey member of the DJT administration. In his speech in Munich at the MSC he recalls his grandparents being from Piedmeont Sardinia in Italy and from Sevilla in Spain. He talks proudly of his Spanish and Italian heritage, of America founded by European settlers. For Europe this is a speech that shows America is profoundly part of Western Civilization that started in Europe. Here are some parts of the speech and Rubio's call for America and Europe to respond strongly to the mistakes in migration and deindustrialization that have hurt the people of Europe and America, with deeply felt negative consequences. "That infamous wall that had cleaved this nation into two came down, and with it an evil empire, and the East and West became one again.  But the euphoria of this triumph led us to a dangerous delusion:  that we had entered, quote, “the end of history;” that every nation would now be a liberal democracy; that the ties formed by trade and by commerce alone would now replace nationhood; that the rules-based global order – an overused term – would now replace the national interest; and that we would now live in a world without borders where everyone became a citizen of the world.  This was a foolish idea that ignored both human nature and it ignored the lessons of over 5,000 years of recorded human history.  And it has cost us dearly.  In this delusion, we embraced a dogmatic vision of free and unfettered trade, even as some nations protected their economies and subsidized their companies to systematically undercut ours – shuttering our plants, resulting in large parts of our societies being deindustrialized, shipping millions of working and middle-class jobs overseas, and handing control of our critical supply chains to both adversaries and rivals.  We increasingly outsourced our sovereignty to international institutions while many nations invested in massive welfare states at the cost of maintaining the ability to defend themselves.  This, even as other countries have invested in the most rapid military buildup in all of human history and have not hesitated to use hard power to pursue their own interests.  To appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people, even as our competitors exploit oil and coal and natural gas and anything else – not just to power their economies, but to use as leverage against our own.  And in a pursuit of a world without borders, we opened our doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people.  We made these mistakes together, and now, together, we owe it to our people to face those facts and to move forward, to rebuild.  Under President Trump, the United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past.  And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe.  For the United States and Europe, we belong together.  America was founded 250 years ago, but the roots began here on this continent long before.  The man who settled and built the nation of my birth arrived on our shores carrying the memories and the traditions and the Christian faith of their ancestors as a sacred inheritance, an unbreakable link between the old world and the new.  We are part of one civilization – Western civilization.  We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir. And so this is why we Americans may sometimes come off as a little direct and urgent in our counsel.  This is why President Trump demands seriousness and reciprocity from our friends here in Europe.  The reason why, my friends, is because we care deeply.  We care deeply about your future and ours.  And if at times we disagree, our disagreements come from our profound sense of concern about a Europe with which we are connected – not just economically, not just militarily.  We are connected spiritually and we are connected culturally.  We want Europe to be strong.  We believe that Europe must survive, because the two great wars of the last century serve for us as history’s constant reminder that ultimately, our destiny is and will always be intertwined with yours, because we know – (applause) – because we know that the fate of Europe will never be irrelevant to our own.  National security, which this conference is largely about, is not merely series of technical questions – how much we spend on defense or where, how we deploy it, these are important questions.  They are.  But they are not the fundamental one.  The fundamental question we must answer at the outset is what exactly are we defending, because armies do not fight for abstractions.  Armies fight for a people; armies fight for a nation.  Armies fight for a way of life.  And that is what we are defending: a great civilization that has every reason to be proud of its history, confident of its future, and aims to always be the master of its own economic and political destiny. It was here in Europe where the ideas that planted the seeds of liberty that changed the world were born.  It was here in Europe where the world – which gave the world the rule of law, the universities, and the scientific revolution.  It was this continent that produced the genius of Mozart and Beethoven, of Dante and Shakespeare, of Michelangelo and Da Vinci, of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.  And this is the place where the vaulted ceilings of the Sistine Chapel and the towering spires of the great cathedral in Cologne, they testify not just to the greatness of our past or to a faith in God that inspired these marvels.  They foreshadow the wonders that await us in our future.  But only if we are unapologetic in our heritage and proud of this common inheritance can we together begin the work of envisioning and shaping our economic and our political future. Deindustrialization was not inevitable.  It was a conscious policy choice, a decades-long economic undertaking that stripped our nations of their wealth, of their productive capacity, and of their independence.  And the loss of our supply chain sovereignty was not a function of a prosperous and healthy system of global trade.  It was foolish.  It was a foolish but voluntary transformation of our economy that left us dependent on others for our needs and dangerously vulnerable to crisis. Mass migration is not, was not, isn’t some fringe concern of little consequence.  It was and continues to be a crisis which is transforming and destabilizing societies all across the West.  Together we can reindustrialize our economies and rebuild our capacity to defend our people.  But the work of this new alliance should not be focused just on military cooperation and reclaiming the industries of the past.  It should also be focused on, together, advancing our mutual interests and new frontiers, unshackling our ingenuity, our creativity, and the dynamic spirit to build a new Western century.  Commercial space travel and cutting-edge artificial intelligence; industrial automation and flex manufacturing; creating a Western supply chain for critical minerals not vulnerable to extortion from other powers; and a unified effort to compete for market share in the economies of the Global South.  Together we can not only take back control of our own industries and supply chains – we can prosper in the areas that will define the 21st century." ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
David Brooks says the Paul Ryan Budget proposal is a bold step forward that is badly needed in this debate on health care, even though it has some grave weaknesses which need to be corrected. It is a bold step forward because he says Democrats say they want no middle class tax increases, or are not willing to say what kinds of tax increases they support, and yet they believe the Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security programs are worth preserving. This is'nt based on reality. He cites the weaknesses, beginning with the one discussed in David Leonhardt's column in the New York Times on April 7, 2011. Too many Americans pay too little into Medicare taxes and expect to collect several hundred thousand dollars more in Medicare benefits. The example given in Leonhardt's column is from a study that shows 56 year olds with average earnings pay about $140,000 in dedicated Medicare taxes over a lifetime, and then go on to collect $430,000 in benefits. Middle class and affluent boomers can't get off paying their share like everybody else. Its just the right way for their children and the nation's children. Ryan's plan excludes older people reaching retirement in ten years. The other major weakness is that the cuts are too deep. Things like the Pell grants which Ryan proposes to cut back to 2008 levels need to be preserved, and more money has to go into science, education and research and early childhood education for the U.S. to be competitive with China and India. The Ryan proposal places cuts that would be required so that tax revenues need to be at 18% of GDP. The number where a larger consensus exists is for tax revenues at 20% of GDP (also supported by business and the Wall Street Journal's editorial columns). This would preserve programs that are most productive for the economic future of the U.S. Ryan's proposal lets the hope for reducing costs of medical care rest entirely on future retirees deciding how much medical care (tests, procedures etc) they consume through larger cost sharing. Yet a structure and framework is needed to manage these costs effectively, and some combination of incentives to retirees to control costs and an effective structural framework is needed. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Putin reminds Russians of the precarious nature of all that has been achieved in Russia, as he seeks support from areas outside Moscow. He wrote in an opinion article in February: "Under the flag of democracy, in the 1990's we received not a modern government, but an opaque fight among clans and numerous semifeudal fiefdoms... We received not a new quality of life, but huge social costs; not a just and free society, but the highhandedness of a self-appointed elite, who openly neglected the interests of simple people." Emphasizing the tenuous and uncertain nature of the recent prosperity, Putin said in a televised appearance: "It is enough to take two or three incorrect steps and all that came before could overcome us before we know it." Schwiritz visits the town of Lyubertsy outside Moscow and hears from ordinary people who remember the privation and dark times of the 1990's, who realize that their lives can be much better, but also see the vast improvement in living conditions. There is a real and tangible fear that all this could be lost or eroded. It also shows that as Moscow and St Petersburg have grown and flourished in the last decade with a strong middle class, there is a great deal of uncertainty felt by ordinary people in smaller towns and cities. As for that period in the 1990's, even young activists like Navalny, say a lot was done in the early years of the Putin-Medvedev government, when even Russian mortality rates were falling with a general sense of despair. ...
Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Working America, an arm of the U.S. trade union the AFL-CIO, conducted conversations with 350,000 voters in 17 U.S. states. Here a representative of Working America, says the overwhelming response to the question "does it make a difference whether Democrats or Republicans are in power for my well being," is reflected in one of the responses- "does it even matter?"

The suggested approach here is for Democrats in particular who have represented working class voters in the past, to start with a fresh approach by creating new conversations with working class Americans.

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The US ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach after Liberation Day- soon to be relics from the China Trade of yesterday. On April 9 US responded to China's 34% tariff with another 50% tariff of its own on China. The US tariff now stands at 104% to China's 84%. China says it won't back down and "will fight to the end." The US president DJT is now certain to restore world trade to the days before China entered the World Trade Organization and upended the world trade order leading to the deindustrialization of the US when US corporations followed Apple in 1998. With Tim  Cook in charge of Apple manufacturing in 1998 doing the first major act of outshoring the whole manufacturing base of a company to China. It was a strategy- to use the huge profits of a three punch approach- brand the product at the high end to command high price in the US through innovation and design (punch 1), followed by making using Chinese labor at low cost in China (punch 2), to generate the huge profits to create a virtuous cycle of investment from these profits to generate new cycle of growth (punch 3). What Apple gained, America's workers lost. This was sold by economists at the service of corporate narrative that it was good for America in the face of the facts showing just the reverse for 25 years 2000-2025. Soon almost the entire manufacturing base of the US was shipped out to China, or Chinese supply bases Vietnam. Japan fell in line and became a supplier to this China Manufacturing for the World. What started out as Microsoft demolishing Apple by 1998 and Apple using this 1-2-3 punch strategy turned into first a disaster for American workers, a loss of the working class leading to the loss of the middle class backbone of America, replaced by Silicon Valley and financial interests in New York City and disproportionate rewards to capital, the rural and small towns, cities across America's heartland thrown into decay and neglect.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
The Guardian 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