LyrArc Article Gist
Romney's tax return for 2011 shows that he paid 14.1% in taxes.

LyrArc Article Gist
The president of Ohio Christian University, Mark Smith, says there are six different faith groups out there in Ohio supporting Romney, and there remains a high level of intensity driven by a desire to protect religious liberty from an enroaching expansion of the state. He says the public fight of the Obama administration with Catholic hospitals and charities was seen as a threat by evangelical Christians. The evangelical vote makes up 30% of the vote in Ohio, 31% in Iowa, and 26% in Wisconsin.

LyrArc Article Gist
Abut 3 million homeowners are expected to default on their mortgages in the 30 months ending in mid 2009, and two thirds of this or 2 million will go into foreclosure, according to Moody's Economy.com. So what led to all this which eventually hit the financial markets in the U.S., and also to a lesser degree in Europe, through the opacity of the mortgage securities created from bad mortgages with falsely tagged triple AAA ratings that ended up in the assets of banks and investment firms? The motivations of each group were perverted as things unfolded. When the packagers of securties were not responsible for what they were doing they pursued profit before ethical behaviour and all sorts of securities were created. As these packagers were allowed to shop for ratings the ratings companies gradually lowered their standards to attract business. Politicians failed in the free market atmosphere of the Republican Bush administration and Republican led Congress. Senator Bachus and Congressman Frank introduced legislation during the later period of the bubble but failed to draw support to curb the bad lending. Republicans blocked a new antipredatory lending law in North Carolina from being enacted for the country from 1999 onwards. And Bush without realizing the ramifications prodded HUD to push Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to require higher percentage of loans to go to low income borrowers. Fannie and Freddie in turn met this requirement by increasing the demand for these subprime loans by buying the mortgage securities, which the packagers of these securities backed by subprime mortgage loans and incorrectly rated AAA by conniving ratings agencies were happy to supply. It was a sad situation with a happy -everyone could say the were bringing home ownership and the American dream to low income people, and business was signing up for this ride with short term gain in mind. And in all this financial innovation lost its legs as packaging these securities and constructing new investment vehicles like the conduits were being used in perverse ways. The basics of labeling something correctly was torn apart. You could not turn a subprime loan to low income borrowers or a loan without documentation to flippers and speculators into something different by simply labeling it as AAA. What the confidence in financial innovation in the American system did was help spread these securities all over the globe, where they were held with confidence by towns in remote parts of the Scandinavian north country as well as financial centres in Europe and Asia. At the state level politicians in California saw this as one of the state's star industries and protected it from legislation to curb bad lending, as most of the big lenders were based in California. Due to a strange set of affairs the Department of Corporations was left with the tasks of oversight of mortgage lenders in the state. It was concerned more with issues like protecting senior citizens from financial scams and was not staffed to meet the supervisory role of a huge mortgage lending business. When it comes to the Fed's role Greenspan also took the laissez fairre stand of not interfering with free markets, even when a lot of the bad lending was obvious and one Fed Governor Gramlich was pushing for better lending standards. The Fed supervisory role was over banks and banks were required to follow lending standards, but most of this lending had shifted to mortgage brokers and financial companies which were beyond the supervision of the Fed. Had the Fed extended its supervision to mortgage affiliates of the banks this could have increased the level of supervision and made a difference. But state regulation mechanisms in California by Department of Corporations show that the regulatory mechanism did not take into account the realities of mortgage lending and how it had changed. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jon Stewart's farewell on "The Daily Show," on August 6, 2015- the first show appeared in 1999- ended on the day the first Republican presidential debate was put on by Fox News. A year after Jon Stewart started his show he made his mark on television by creating a new genre- comedy that informs people. "Indecision 2000" was a new show that covered the 2000 U.S. presidential election ending with the small number of paper ballots in Florida determining the election. A whole generation of young people grew up watching his show which provided some of the bold vigilance so essential for a effective democracy, including coverage of the 2009 financial crisis. It included a show in which the host of the CNBC show "Mad Money" was told boldly that it was disingenuous that the crisis caught everybody on Wall Street by surprise, when informed people knew about the bad mortgages that were being wildly securitized. This was handled with the subtle humor that continued the conversation in an intelligent way, so typical of Jon Stewart. He is also remarkable for helping so many of his colleagues make a mark, including Stephen Colbert, which amplified his influence on discourse in American society. It included questionning those who benefitted from the intelligent debate with humor that Jon Stewart engaged in- president Obama was asked why the homeowners got so little help compared to the banks involved in the faulty mortgages, as a question of fairness. Veterans from the Iraq war were welcomed to see how the show was developed and get training. Stewart defused anger and channelled it into constructive discourse in American society, during 2 wars, a global financial crisis, and 4 presidential elections- "with malice towards none, with charity for all"- he will be sorely missed....

LyrArc Article Gist
The loss of some 4 million jobs is expected by experts in 2009, and Obama economic advisor Christina Romer has presented information at a meeting that shows the current downturn will be more severe than anything we experienced in the last 50 years. At that meeting on December 16, 2008, Obama met with Romer and other economic and policy advisors for 4 hours. It was decided that the target for jobs should be 3 million jobs created in 2009 and 2010. This still means a lot of the 4 million job loss will still occur in 2009, even if the infrastructure jobs estimated at $136 billion by the nation's governors get off to a fast start as they are supposedly ready to go. Money to states and local governments will reduce job losses and loss of services, and money in the form of lower payroll taxes would probably be saved to reduce debt by the public. Money to the poor to support medicaid and health care services and expanding healthcare coverage for those who lose coverage will be safety net reinforcement and support. So finding places to spend where jobs can be created quickly will be a challenge going forward and some of the $1 trillion stimulus will not go directly to job creation but as support. For the December 16 meeting Romer consulted with Martin Feldstein the senior Republican economist who said that " without action the economy will continue to decline rapidly." For a long time Martin Feldstein has been advocating strong action especially to reduce foreclosures and help stabilize housing prices. As the economy has weakened he has revised upwards what needs to be done, and his estimates are close to the lower end of the $800 billion to 1.3 trillion that is being estimated for 2 years. Lawrence Lindsay and other economists are supporting upto $1 trillion stimulus. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Some figures on the foreclosure situation. 2.3 million Americans faced foreclosure proceedings in 2008, 81% increase over 2007. 860,000 properties were repossessed by lenders, more than double the 2007 level, according to RealtyTRac a foreclosure listing firm in Irvine,, California. Moody's Economy.com predicts the numbers to go up 18% in 2009 before slowing through 2011. That is 2.71 million foreclosures in 2009. To prevent the foreclosure levels from getting much worse as unemployment drops, the new administration plans to use upto $100 billion of the remaining $350 billion TARP funds to help homeowners. The 4 states hardest hit are Nevada, Arizona, California and Florida. More than 1.1 million properties there received foreclosure notices, almost half the total nationwide. The hardest hit areas are in California, with the metro areas worst hit in order are Stockton, California, Las Vegas, Nevada, Riverside and Bakersfield, California, and Phoenix. In December more than 303,000 properties nationwide received foreclosure notices, up 40% from year ago month, and 17% above November 2008. At 303,000 the yearly rate is 3.6 million foreclosures or higher for 2009, so the Moody's estimate for 2009 must take into account acceleration of steps to help homeowners with the new administration. Are the rather modest steps taken upto now helping? RealtyTrac analysts estimate that without a state law requiring lenders to give borrowers a 30 day warning before starting the foreclosure process, the foreclosures in California would be 10% higher. There are similiar state laws in Massachusetts and Maryland. Throughout 2008 few steps were taken by the Bush administration to slow foreclosures, even though Republican economists like Martin Feldstein repeatedly advocated this. See links to Feldstein and Sheila Bair of the FDIC who also advocated aggressive action, and providing the numbers to show that it was costlier for lenders to see borrowers go into foreclosure compared to reducing principal and interest payments significantly. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Will the long awaited Obama plan do enough to reduce foreclosures and help the economy? $75 billion will go to help homeowners facing foreclosure. But it continues the earlier course of letting it be voluntary for banks and lending institutions to decide if they in fact want to reduce the mortgage payment to 38% of the borrower's income. If they do the government provides an incentive of $1000 for every loan modified, and more payments if the borrower stays current. If the lender decides that its not in its interest to make concesssions to reduce the payments to 38% of the borrower's income, in exchange for the $1000 incentive, it could well decide to do nothing, and even continue the current practice of adding on interest and penalties that actually increase the mortgage payment in many cases. Is it enough? Clearly no, if Mark Zandl, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com is right, and helps only 1 million of the estimated 14 million people who are under water, and the homes are worth much less than the outstanding mortgage. As Martin Feldstein has pointed out for the last year since early 2008, its these people who are under water that need to be helped, and not in a piecemeal or voluntary way as Obama is suggesting. It only goes to show that after all the rhetoric, Government both Republican and Democratic, differ only in degrees in the way they are responding to the foreclosure crisis, that is at the root of the financial crisis. The tidal wave of foreclosures, the other 13 million borrowers that are not helped by this plan but are under water, with growing numbers because of growing layoffs, suggest a serious failure to tackle the problem, with serious consequences for 2009 and beyond....

LyrArc Article Gist
The nuclear trade deal with India and approval by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. If passed by Congresas in September the deal goes into effect. At the NSG, New Zealand, Austria and China were the holdouts and had to be persuaded by the United States. Under the deal India cannot conduct nuclear weapons tests and if it does its upto the USA to decide if it will continue to supply India with nuclear materials and technologies. India is running short of uranium and other nuclear materials it needs for its civilian andnuclear weapons programs since it was refused access by the NSG after earlier tests decades before. It also depends on how the US sees China and Pakistan in relation to India and its nuclear programs. One thing is certain India will push forward aggressively with new nuclear energy programs and setup its own nuclear energy reactors to provide its growing energy needs and to reduce existing shortages and also lower its oil bill. So in the next couple of years or the next decade the world will certainly see the peaceful development of nuclear energy and development of new technologies in the nuclear energy field as India becomes a key user and developer of nuclear energy technologies. At that point India may become a part of the fabric of peaceful nuclear energy development in the world as it meets asignificant part of its energy needs through nuclear reactors. It will be a welcome development as it will ease the burden on oil supplies that in the case of China became a key part of the upward pressure on oil prices as China relied mostly on oil and gas for energy needs. This is probably the thinking in the current Republican administration as it pushed hard for this nuclear deal to supply India....

LyrArc Article Gist
Romney picks seven term Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate for the 2012 U.S. presidential election. It is a daring pick because Ryan has clear ideas about reducing the U.S. deficit which are in sharp contrast to the approach taken by Obama and Biden, offering American voters a clear choice. This is similiar to the contrasting choices between Reagan-Bush and Carter-Mondale during a period of high unemployment and inflation in the 1980 presidential election. The contrast was also made clear by the release of the Shultz memo to President Reagan and the comparisons with the Reagan election by Romney economic advisor Glenn Hubbard, both recently published in WSJ.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute points to trade barriers reducing competition and free trade that should raise an outcry when free trade and competition advocates focus alone on the Trump steel tariffs. He points to estimates that show $90 billion in additional costs to Americans from the barriers that prevent Americans from paying world market prices for surgeries and medical treatment, prices similar to what is paid in advanced countries like Germany, Britain and France. A bigger barrier in pharmaceuticals prices being sheltered from market competition worldwide costs a huge $370 billion in additional costs to Americans. These two costs in healthcare would help Americans by a magnitude compared to tax cuts that do not work for average Americans with the business tax cut going more into share buybacks than into increasing wages or capital investment in 2018.  Bernstein points to Neil Irwin's column in the NYT that flags statements such as Senator Mike Lee, Republican, that the steel tariffs are a huge job killing tax hike, as being misleading. Bernstein says two actions were never taken that would have used benefits of free trade to help affected communities that lost jobs in industries such as steel and textiles, other industries affected by foreign competition.  He lists these steps as sectoral employment training, apprenticeships ,and job creation efforts in the worst affected areas. Basically no one really knows what is good trade policy, the textbook concepts and theories are out of date when countries can subsidize particular industries such as steel and dump products into the American market. At a press conference on CSPAN with the Swedish prime minister Mr. Trump stated that China was exporting more than what is officially shown as there are transshipments from other countries, some of them with no steel mills.  As Mr. Trump stated at that press conference he was elected partly because of the worst affected communities- in places such as Michigan and other states in the midwestern U.S.- that suffered from unfair trade. Bernstein admonishes the economists and politicians, media, for the headlines that are misleading in showing that bad trade policy is being pursued and trade wars are being started. This deserves attention because the Trump administration and advisors such as Lighthizer who served in the Reagan administration seek fair trade, and the Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross successfully pushed for NAFTA trade deal renegotiation not the outright rejection of NAFTA that was mentioned in the election campaign. Ironically no one is helped by this trade rhetoric and misleading headlines. In fact the strengthening of the U.S. currency as the huge trade surplus of China goes into U.S. assets, and with the election of Mr. Trump, gives foreign competitors a continued advantage. And in fact Japan, South Korea, China, had a mild response to the tariffs as reported, because these countries are aware of global overcapacity created especially by China which produces 50% of the world's steel, and as China shifts to higher technologically value added products closing many older steel mills. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A survey of 414 National Association of Business Economics (NABE) economists shows Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson with 15%, overtaking Trump at 14% on who would best manage the economy. On protectionist views only 9% support this. 15% said they have no opinion and 55% said Hillary Clinton would do the best job of managing the economy. About 62% say the election uncertainty is holding back growth. Some aspects of Hillary Clinton's economic plan are the $275 billion infrastructure investment over 10 years, taking action against companies that ship jobs overseas, a capital gains tax paln that encourages long term investments, supporting $15 minimum wage, making upward mobility a top priority, providing government financed access to public colleges for working class and lower income groups. Donald Trump's plan has suffered form lack of specifics, shifting comments, lack of careful study, and excessive use of slogans. Both candidates oppose trade agreements that shift jobs overseas. Trump's plan also suffers from lack of credibility overseas as this is important in a global business structure, with fears of protectionism increasing. and reminding people of the protectionism under Smoot-Hawley that increased the damage from the depression of the thirties. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Leonhardt points out a couple of problems with Paul Ryan's budget proposal for Medicare. He says Medicare recipients, with the exception of the very affluent, currently haven't paid enough for the benefits they receive. He cites a study that shows Medicare pays out several hundreds of thousands of dollars for the average retiree more than they ever paid in. Medicare funds go for hospital expenses, the rest for doctors bills come from general government revenues. Government borrowing increasing the national debt to unsustainable levels so that current retirees do not have to pay higher taxes, is simply shifting the burden to the next generation. He says the Ryan plan shields those who will retire in the next 10 years because they are a powerful voting bloc, making this more of a political calculation than a bold reform step, as this means younger people will have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden. The other part of Ryan's calculus is that it has proven extremely difficult to reduce the volume of medical care that is consumed in terms of tests, lack of preventive care leading to graver problems, and surgeries. Simply by shifting a larger share of the cost to future retirees this will have an effect on the volume of medical care consumed and put a lid on costs. This is something that needs to happen says Leonhardt, but at the same time all Americans need to share in the higher taxes that are necessary to fund Medicare, exempting 75 million Americans only creates an imbalance in contributions. The other problem with this is that the costs of this exempted group will postpone serious deficit reduction for ten years....

LyrArc Article Gist
DJT 1.0 was led on the tariffs policy by USTR Robert Lighthizer, who had experience negotiating with the Japanese negotiators in the Reagan era. He is today respected by  Republicans, is seen in an important role in economic policy and to prepare the tariff policy actions of the new DJT administration. Lighthizer prefers to get Congress to take action with legislation. He also believes that domestic manufacturing will make gains with new and higher tariffs on Chinese imports. Lighthizer policy is falsely compared with Hoover Tariffs Act of 1930 when world trade was 9% of world GDP, today it is 63% of world GDP, and where under Hoover in 1930 the tariffs were across the board all countries 20,000 goods. Under Lighthizer on specific products where dumping is happening -steel, aluminium, autos, with Japan in 1960-70 or China 2000-2020 targeting American industries + technologies for takeover. And falsely when it comes to raising costs to each American family on average by $4000 a year by economists. The conventional view for business for 2000-2016 through Bush and Obama favoring free trade did not take into account the unusual experience of China which entered WTO in 1990, then expanded in a way unprecedented in history at 10-12% growth rates for 15 years destroying American manufacturing with dumping, having support of outshoring by companies in the US, and not giving reciprocal treatment for exports from the US to China. China also had unrestricted access to US technologies in this type of trade. Lighthizer's approach was to specifically address this problem not a general across the board tariffs on all goods (20,000 goods) on all countries as with the Hoover Tariffs Act in 1930. Lighthizer's approach adopted by DJT called for reciprocal trade response with China as the US had already done with Japan, not unilateral across the board tariffs, and when world trade had advanced to about zero tariff rates. And falsely compared to Hoover 1930 Act because under Hoover tariffs were 29-40%. raised to 60% when world trade was small, was 9% of GDP. The Biden administration has tacitly agreed with Lighthizer's vision by not reversing DJT tariffs. A new higher tariff will probably be selective based on the industry, country and what goals the US has set under the new administration for that industry. Some of the tariffs revenue may also be used for tax cuts. ...