LyrArc Article Gist
Glenn Hubbard, Professor at Columbia University and Bush adviser who helped design the Bush tax cuts, has an uneasy sense about the tax cuts today. He says the tax cuts have been undermined by years of deficit spending. The Bush tax cuts expire Dec 31st 2010 in the USA if Congress does not act. Macroeconomic Advisors estimates that letting the tax cuts expire will take 0.9% off the growth rate. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman prefers to let the tax cuts expire and provide more help to state and local governments to preserve jobs that are being lost due to budget shortfalls. But becuase of the political climate he prefers to let the tax cuts go on for a limited period. The Obama administration may decide to continue with the tax cuts rather than fight the serious battles for deficit reduction, after spending much of its political capital on health care reform. Hubbard also thinks in the current situation its best to keep the tax cuts even with the concern for the deficits. He says the spending during the Bush administration, especially the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which is estimated to cost $400 billion from 2004-2013, was a major problem. The incentives to business and investors for productive effort in the Bush tax cuts is uncertain, if it becomes clear that the price for these cuts is higher taxes later on to cover growing deficit spending. Hubbard does not see any serious action on the deficit till the next Presidential term and sees it better to keep the tax cuts till then, when some serious discussion can take place....

LyrArc Article Gist
As the trade problems with the U.S. escalate in tit for tat tariffs, China looks back at its history for parallels. The period of the "unequal treaties" imposed by the Western powers on China in the period 1850-1900, the Korean War of the 1950's, and other analogies that come up to people. Yet China's planners and leaders are looking at another situation the Plaza Accord of 1985 in which the western nations pressured Japan into accepting a significantly higher exchange rate to reduce its trade surplus and the Japanese yen appreciated by 50%. Japan cut interest rates from 5% to 2.5%, and introduced huge fiscal stimulus, banks opened up to lend vigorously. The result was a boom by 1990's followed by a bust that led to another decade of lending to loss making firms called "zombie" businesses, that led to a stagnant economy. This has persisted for three decades. This China sees as an unacceptable situation when China has still not achieved developed economy status in terms of per capita incomes. It fears getting into a middle income trap as the economic growth slows and the aging population makes a recovery more difficult.  The difference with Japan in the 1985-1990 period is that Mr. Trump lacks the kind of five nation economic coordination that put pressure on Japan. Today there are differing views on China in Europe and the U.S. and different policies. Mr. Trump is known for his style of deal making and could settle early, as feared by some Republican leaders in Congress who see in China a challenge to America's technological dominance. There are no calls to appreciate China's currency. Only calls for China to change its state subsidies model and put in writing and through laws that change the way of doing business that does not require American companies to hand over advanced technology. This is also a concern for Japan and the European Union countries such as Germany, and is something all nations try to protect in global competition. Japan is still facing the consequences in creating a new competitor in high speed train technology after building the first high speed trains in China and transfer of the high speed train technology by Kawasaki. The Household Survey by the Federal Reserve showing the financial fragility of 40% of American families shown on this page today shows how this situation is likely to evolve as working class families in the U.S. support a trade stance that protects American jobs and technology. Job losses over three decades and a $891 billion trade deficit in 2018 are seen as unacceptable to the U.S. in 2019. A stronger U.S. dollar helped increase the U.S. trade deficit by 10% in 2018, nullifying some benefits of Mr. Trump's trade actions. Mr. Robert Lighthizer was a negotiator in the trade dispute with Japan in 1985, and runs the negotiations with China with support from president Trump. This alone has kept the Japanese situation in 1985 uppermost in the minds of China's leaders as they try to come up with a way to settle the trade dispute with Mr. Trump.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. House of Representatives votes 285-144 to suspend the debt ceiling till Feb. 7, 2014. The deal forged in the Senate by Democrat Reid and Republican McConnell passed in th Senate by 81-18. The U.S. stock markets closed with the DJIA at 15374, up 1.6% compared to Sept 30 when the government shutdown began. The Republicans opposing the passage outnumbered those supporting it 144 to 87 in the House of Representatives. Because this was a repeat of similiar failure to reach agreement and last minute deals in 2012 and 2011 the equity markets appear to have taken the conflict between the two parties in stride.

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Supercommittee in Congress fails to reach an agreement to come up with $1.2 trillion in savings to reduce the deficit by the Nov. 23, 2011 deadline. This shifts the focus to the sequester or triggering automatic cuts in Jan. 2013, as mandated in the Congressional deficit reduction deal of August 2, 2011. These automatic cuts would reduce defense spending by 10%, cut social programs without touching Medicaid and Social Security, by 7.8%, and reduce Medicare payments by 2%.

LyrArc Article Gist
Congressional Budget Office projections show the difficult choices facing the U.S. - tackling the deficit by letting the Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax cuts expire will lead to low growth. The alternative is growth with much higher deficits. GDP growth would be at about 2.3% in this fiscal year if the payroll tax cut is kept till December 2012. In fiscal 2013 if a number of tax cuts are permitted to expire and across the board spending cuts take effect as scheduled GDP growth would decline to 1.1%. Taxes would increase by $465 billion in 2013 over 2012 if tax cuts expire - individuals and companies would pay $2.99 trillion in taxes in fiscal year 2013 in that scenario. Spending cuts would take effect in Jan 2013 for $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The result- " a sharp fiscal contraction" in the words of CBO director Elmendorf. Unemployment would go up to 8.9% in 2012 year end and 9.2% in 2013 yearend from 8.5% today, if no agreement is made to extend tax cuts and block spending cuts. The risk of not taking the debt reduction actions is to let the debt grow to $11 trillion over 10 years, an unsustainable path, compared to about $3.1 trillion over 10 years if tax cuts are permitted to expire and spending cuts take place. This is the tough choice facing America in 2012, and comes when Europe is facing similar tough choices....

LyrArc Article Gist
The tough job President Obama faces as he faces opposition from politicians who have interests to protect, and healthcare businesses with interests to protect. The President has to come up with a plan that is deficit neutral, because financial markets could see a healthcare bill that further widens the deficit as a signal for higher interest rates that would deepen the recession. At the same time each of the three sources of revenue puts him at loggerheads with political leaders in Congress or groups with interests to protect. Limiting income tax deductions for high earners could raise $267 billion in 10 years. It would require taxpayers in the top tax brackets deduct their mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations, at the 28% tax rate instead of the 33% and 35% tax rates. The opposition is with democratic leaders that it would hurt charities, universities that depend on tax deductible donations, and taxpayers in high tax cities like New York city that are the home base of Democratic leaders. Yet only 1.4% of households would be affected says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, says charitable giving would decrease by 2%. The other opposition on this comes from the preference of Senators Baucus and Grassley, who head the Senate Finance Committee, for tax increases or cost savings to come from the health sector. Specifically they want to see the value of workers' employer provided health benefits subject to income taxes. It is a situation in which every sensible person admits the need for healthcare reform and would see the current pace of healthcare costs as unsustainable and dangerous; and after that will just go back to his group and try to preserve as much of the status quo as possible, so as not to disturb by much the benefits or compensation they have secured from the system over the years. Then there are political leaders in Congress with their own preferences, and Congressmen who are the subject of heavy lobbying by these interests. The administration and the Presidents job is to navigate this stream with a workable deficit neutral plan, without any requirement for any group to make sacrifices, and in some situations even small sacrifices for the public interest. Would charitable institutions be hurt that much, what if charitable institutions were exempted, why would other interests the try to obtain the same exemption. Its like the unions trying to keep the old unsustainable goldplated healthcare and other benefits at GM even as the ship was going down. Taxing employer provided employee health benefits as income would raise $2.5 trillion over a decade. The opposition here is from unions which are a force in the Democratic party and which count tax free health benefits as a legacy of the labor movement. Employer provided health insurance covers 160 million American employed and their dependents under the age of 65, so it has a wide impact. Yet most economists favor ending the tax break. They say it mainly goes to upper income taxpayers, and discourages cost consciousness among consumers of health care, thus encouraging excessive spending and surging health care costs. Senior Obama advisors, Peter Orszag, the budget director, and economist Jason Furman favor this approach. So do Republicans in Congress. Senators Baucus and Grassley are not asking for the complete removal of the tax break, what they want to see is capping the value of benefits that go untaxed. If the tax-free limit is $13,000, a policy worth $15,000 would pay income taxes on $2000. A third spource is to spend less on Medicare. About two thirds of the $948 billion in savings Mr Obama has proposed over 10 years comes from a number of reductions in Medicare spending. $177 billion comes from insurance companies bidding for government reimbursements for offering private plans to seniors. $106 billion comes from cutting the subsidies to hospitals serving the uninsured as universal coverage should remove this need. And $110 billion in reduced payments to hospitals and doctors because of productivity gains. A range of industries insurance companies, hospitals, doctors drugmakers, nursing homes, home health care companies and medical device makers, all stand to lose from reduced payments from Medicare and Medicaid. And these groups with interests to protect are another factor in this process of working out a healthcare plan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The non-partisan approach taken by Republican governor Snyder of Michigan contrasts sharply with the approach of Governor Walker in Wisconsin and Governor Brownback in Kansas.

LyrArc Article Gist
A couple of things have taken Obama ahead given he is a candidate who the electorate is not so familiar with and his relative lack of experience, and they relate to McCain as candidate and Obama as candidate. McCain comes across as impulsive and casual, Obama has more composure and steadiness and is thorough. In the selection of candidate Obama filled in for experience, and McCain's selection handicapped his experience argument. McCain campaign's higher taxes from Obama argument is also blunted by his poorly thought out plan to tax health insurance benefits, which neutralized his claims of higher taxes from Demmocrats. And Obama's grassroots organization and fundraising maakes it possible to run a stronger better campaign and his focus has been consistent and steady on the economy, all of which add up to another advantage. And all this is happening against the background of 8 years of Republicans and unpopularity of Bush. To that is added the sudden deterioration of the economy in September 2008 and a global financial crisis, in which McCain's impulsiveness in going to Washington which led to Republicans voting down the first bailout plan in the House was set against steadiness of Obama on these economic issues, with advice from an experienced man like Paul Volcker, former Fed chairman. The worst hit economically are midwest states where the auto industry is near collapse needing its own bailout, and this has led to an astonishing lead in some polls of 25 points for Obama, quite unheard of for a fresh candidate....

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman puts it best when he says in the NYT that he's got a sick feeling in the pit of his stomach. Its just that the Republican challenge of not a single vote in the House for the $789 billion Stimulus bill just makes it harder to go back for more money which most definitely will be needed. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that over the next 3 years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and will actually produce. $789 billion won't be enough, and more so because the weightage shifted in the direction of tax cuts from the original version. And considering the accelerating nature of the crisis on the housing front and in layoffs and consumption, the absence of a clear action plan with specifics to deal with the bad debt in the banking system, is what gives this sick feeling in the stomach. Because as is stated on these same pages by experts from Japan on February 12, NYT, see the link, Japan went through this same soul searching, public anger, controversy, and political leaders were afraid to take strong action for years from the mid 1990's till 2003 after Koizumi's election. Each action or set of actions each year during that period before 2003 was behind the curve, and did not match what was needed. For the USA this has happened already for 2007, 2008 and is heading in that direction for 2009, with a lack of consensus for the strong action needed. Would 4 million new jobs be generated by the current stimulus if that is a measure of success, as Obama indicated at his first press conference? With less going into spending for education, infrastructure, energy and other green projects, in favor of tax cuts and the AMT, and the feeling that going to Congress for more money will be harder and a partisan affair, will this become difficult to achieve? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A new study by the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation shows partisan politics will affect the new president in the U.S. in 2013, to the point of making it difficult to govern.

LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSJ cautions about thinking that the GDP growth of 3% is likely to be achieved with the Trump plan for a corporate tax rate of 15%. He says evidence from Britain and Canada- Britain reducing the tax rate from 30% in 2007 to 19% today, and Canada from 28% in 2000 to 21% in 2004- is disappointing. In Britain the increase in GDP averaged about 0.1% a year. Business investment increases with cut in corporate taxes, and the U.S. corporate tax rate is higher than other advanced countries such as Germany, yet GDP growth includes other factors, such as the business cycle, demographics, productivity growth, aging, technology, regulation, says Ip. It is better if the tax cuts are spread broadly over the population, and tax cuts are offset to a greater extent by savings in other areas, and that tax cuts promote productivity boosting investment, to create enough of a surge in growth above 2%.

LyrArc Article Gist
Under the McConnell-Biden fiscal cliff deal of Jan. 1, 2013, $620 billion is raised for deficit reduction over 10 years. This is made up of $395 billion from raising the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6% from 35% for the top 1% of filers who make $450,000 for couples or 400,000 for singles. Raising the top rate on capital gains and dividends to 20% from 15% raises $55 billion. Limiting the personal exemption and itemized deductions on incomes over $250,000 is a key component as it raises $150 billion. This reduction of tax expenditures was recommended by Simpson-Bowles deficit commission and Republican advisor Martin Feldstein, with more money raised under their proposals than the current proposal which follows the Pease format. Under the Pease limits named after a Congressman who proposed this in the 1990's, 3% of the amount above the threshhold income is deducted from the total deductions. Feldstein's proposal limited deductions to 2% of adjusted gross income. Romney offered a plan to limit deductions to $25,000. Finally, increasing the estate tax to 40% from 35% raises $20 billion....

LyrArc Article Gist
The structure of the deal that is coming up for a vote in Congress on August 1st, a day before the August 2 deadline. A deal put together mainly by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Biden after other deals failed. It gives the government $400 billion immediately and another $500 billion in the fall for raising the debt ceiling. Another 1.2 trillion will be added in 2012. The entire burden for raising it falls on Obama. Obama will be able to get the debt ceiling raised without another long struggle before 2012 elections. On spending cuts- agency spending will be cut by $900 billion over the next 10 years. A new legislative committe will be set up to come up with $1.2 trillion in additional savings by the end of 2012. The mechanism that would force the committe to act or make sure spending cuts were taken if the committee failed, was set up as one in which the trigger is to force automatic across the board cuts. The automatic across the board cuts would be for $1.2 trillion to agency budgets for the next 10 years, and split this half and half between domestic programs and defence. Programs aiding the poor including Medicaid and Social Security would be exempted, but Medicare payments to providers could be touched. No new taxes are part of this deal....

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael McConnell, was Assistant General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981-1983. He is now a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University. Here he tries to throw light on how the budgetary process that is required by law, and which makes the formal budget proposed by the president available for public scrutiny, was circumvented through a sequence of events starting in February 2011. The Budget Act of 1974 sets specific deadlines and a process for generating revenue, setting spending priorities, and setting the debt limit. The President first submits his administration's budget by the first Monday in February. The Congressional Budget Office has until Feb. 15 to score the budget using identical metrics for all proposals for a consistent scoring. The budget President Obama put forward in February did not take into account the growing deficit and was rejected by the Senate 97-0. The President proposed a new plan in April 2011, but the proposed budget was so vague that CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said he could not score it. The subsequent efforts in June and July 2011 were carried out in closed door negotiations between senior Republican leaders and the Obama White House. This subverts the original intention of the law. The Budget Act says that both the House and Senate hold hearings on the proposal, with testimony from the administration, "national organizations" and the "general public." Transparency, openness and accountabilility are key aspects of a proper process that is democratic and prevents the parties from engaging in blame and competing claims. The closed door negotiating sessions and the lack of a concrete written budget proposal from the President has turned the current budget process into an effort by each side to see how it can best position itself for the 2012 presidential election. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Speaker Boehner and Republican's backup Plan B is for Bush tax cuts to be given to taxpayers with incomes below $1 million. President Obama and Democrats have proposed a revised figure of $400,000 from the earlier figure of $250,000.

LyrArc Article Gist
Standard and Poor's changed its rating of U.S. Treasury securities from stable to negative. U.S. Treasury securites are still rated AAA. Moody's made no change in the rating. U.S gross debt as a percentage of GDP is 91.6%, with the comparable number for Germany at 80%, France 82%, Canada 84%, the UK at 77%, Japan 221%. The U.S. budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is 10.6%, the comparable number for Germany is 3.3%, France 7%, Canada 5.5%, the UK 10.4%. John Chambers, the head of the sovereign ratings committee at Standard & Poor's stated that "the sign of political gridlock was a key determinant in our outlook change." The budget deficit will go up to $1.5-$1.65 trillion, or over 10% of America's GDP in 2011. The gross debt for the U.S. is at $14.219 trillion, just short of the $14.294 trillion cap. With rising entitlement costs and the interest on debt this is expected to go over the debt ceiling as early as July 8, 2011. Again political gridlock and the divide between Republicans and Democrats about deficit reduction is causing concern about the delay in raising the debt ceiling....

LyrArc Article Gist
Changes Republican Governor Sam Brownback is making in the state of Kansas, which focus on conservative values, lower taxes, and major cuts to spending to reduce the footprint of government in the state. Kansas has a large Republican majority in the House of Representatives and strong tea party fervor, giving Brownback an opportunity to remake government in the state. Yet there is some skepticism about how lasting these changes can be with the cuts in government services. Some Republicans say the question is how much in government services do the people of Kansas want- if the cuts are too steep the people of Kansas may find too many services have been cut. Over the the last century Kansas has usually voted for moderate Republican governors, making this a major change.

LyrArc Article Gist
David Cote describes his experience as a late bloomer. He describes his experiences taking six years for college, and at 23 living with a pregnant wife in a New Hampshire tenement. With the only heat source a stove for a chilly New Hampshire winter, and not enough money to support three people, it was his wake up call. A lesson learnt from his father who operated a service station stays with him. It is about thinking twice when your pride and emotion drive you in another direction but you have to act smart instead. Decisiveness can be a bad thing, if done the wrong way- coming up with a decision without getting all or as much as possible of the facts and looking at them carefully. The bigger the decision, the bigger the consequences if you get it wrong. For this it helps to have people around a senior manager who do the same, are able to think independently and argue with you about it in a way that keeps the matter objective without it getting emotional.