LyrArc Article Gist
The $350 billon in proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid in the 2011 deficit reduction talks will do little to reduce the rapid rise in medical costs. Instead it shifts the costs to seniors, state governments and public hospitals. Gail Wilensky, former head of Medicare under the first President Bush and now a senior fellow at Project Hope, says this should not be confused with real reform to Medicare which reduces the rapid increase in costs. It does little in the way of fundamental changes that would reduce the growth in costs. About $53 billion comes from reductions to senior's ability to buy extra Medicare supplemental insurance or Medigap. Another $14-26 billion would have the government reduce payments to hospitals for unpaid debt. The few items to curtail fraud in the use of CT scans or purchase of power wheelchairs would provide savings of $2-3 billion over 10 years. $4 billion comes from lowering Medicaid payments to hospitals treating a high percentage of low income patients, hospitals such as Cook County Hospital in Chicago, San Francisco General Hospital, and Parkland Hospital in Dallas....

LyrArc Article Gist
The FDIC acknowledges that it has not been able to get banks interested in a pilot program called the Legacy Loans Program. That program was designed to give the banks an opportunity to sell off $1 billion of troubled mortgages. Since November with the efforts of the Troubled Asset Program under Secretary Paulson to have the banks sell off these assets in an auction or some other way, the whole issue of getting the toxic or troubled assets off the books of the banks has been effectively shelved. The Obama administration's version of this was the Geithner Public Private Partnership program, but this like Paulson's TARP never really got off the ground. Instead several things have happened that have enabled banks to show higher profits and improve stock prices. The period from March 2009 to June 2009, a period of several months has seen bank stock prices recover and banks are now able to raise capital on their own from investors. The government's "stress tests" gave the banks credibility with investors and they were designed not to be so stringent as to affect confidence. The mark to market rule has also been relaxed so that banks are no longer required to show these toxic assets at prices that reflect large losses. Bank executives also are wary of the new executive compensation rules of the government. All of these things have combined to create asituation where some confidence has been restored, but at the same time experts are pointing out that the underlying problems of an estimated $1 trillion in troubled assets remains. Banks are even less likely to want to part with these assets at lower prices now that some semblence of confidence is returning, as they would then have to show large losses. What this implies is that if the economy suffered a setback, these problems would return and be just as intractable as ever....

LyrArc Article Gist
As the Obama administration plans a large stimulus spending plan that may approach $1 trillion over several years, considering also the second phase of the $800 billion first phase stimulus, there is a concern that there may be wasteful spending and social costs of borrowing and spending by the government of such proportions. In economics jargon this hinges on whether there is amultiplier effect of spending, higher if its efficiently and well spent with less impact on private consumption and investment, and lower if the opposite were true. The assumption behind amultiplier of 1.0 for an additional bridge or road is that resources like manpower and capital that would be otherwise idle are deployed to produce something useful. An increase in one unit of government purchases increases by one unit the real gross domestic product. The government has effectively created the additional bridge or road without a cut in anybody's consumption or a businesses investment. The other contrasting approaches are to say there is a multiplier of zero, meaning there is a social cost in two ways. One the reduction of consumption and the crowding out of businesses investing in new products and technologies for example, and second in the inefficent use of resources if a government bureaucracy is put to work allocating money and the additional dangers of favoritism and corruption. To say that there is a multipier of 1.5 would mean that the government figures out a way to get private investment through conversion of plants for automotive parts say to make wind turbine blades by giving incentives, tax benefits and grants, spends on a dilapidated road and public transportation infrastructure that may provide benefits in increased growth capacity over future years. The limits of a government bureaucracy and inefficiency of government would in this case be addressed by transparency rules adopted and measures that track progress that are freely available to all citizens say on a website on the internet, and by bringing in fresh management talent from the private sector. There appears to be no generalization that can be applied for one multiplier for all projects. It may be that the multiplier will vary with the project. Some projects like the conversion of a factory making unneeded auto parts to a badly needed wind energy part, to change the dynamics of energy market pricing, to meet energy needs and cut emissions, may end up having a multiplier much above 1.0. A redundant or less needed bridge has a lower multiplier than a bridge rebuilt before it leads to breakdown. And also the complication that too large a movement in one direction say of stimulus spending, might result in a shift of the curve towards a smaller multiplier and diminishing returns, as the resources to track such a large expenditure and the talent to adminster are overextended. The social cost of private investment not making that investment in new technology, new product or improved product has to be figured into all this, both at the conceptual level as all costs and benefits may not be picked up in the analysis, and at the macro level keeping in mind that the animal spirits, as they were once described, may just not be there to absorb the huge outlays which a government can make. These do not come without an opportunity cost and borrowing costs. All this leads one to to conclude that spending has to be carefully evaluated and projects assessed on a case by case basis for costs and benefits. The spending has to be balanced to provide just as many incentives for private investment to invest in new products and technologies. One way the Obama team is attempting to address this is to include a $300 billion tax cut for businesses and individuals. The business tax cuts are aimed at helping small business with losses, and for future investments and making hires and forgoing layoffs. The other part relates to careful evaluation of spending projects and transparency so the people can see if they are effective. See the link to this....

LyrArc Article Gist
A Tax Policy Center study (joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Insitute) shows $157 billion would be generated in the first year from an increase in taxes on the top 1% of income earners in the U.S., about 1.13 million households earning average $2.1 million, by increasing the federal tax rate from current 33.4% for this group to 40%. This could pay for a program to provide tution free education in America's colleges and universities. Even increasing the federal tax to 40% on the 115,000 households earning over $9.4 million on average, the top 0.1% of American households, would generate $55 billion in the first year, enough to pay for the $47 billion cost of tution free education at all of America's public colleges and universities, according to the Tax Policy Center. Economists including Stiglitz and others, point to significant impact of revenue generated from such a tax when applied to improving educational opportunity for the middle class and lower income groups. Education is a great leveler of income disparities as seen in the U.S. after World War II. During recent decades the highest income groups weren major beneficiaries of tax and economic policy, at the very time the middle class and factory workers were hit hard by global competition which lowered wages and exported jobs. The interest rate policies of the Fed after boom bust cycles also favored large investors in equity markets over smaller income earners with savings account deposits, whose savings experienced little growth under interest rates close to zero. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Obama's State of the Union address in 2014 focusses on increasing the minimum wage, reducing inequality and creating opportunities for the middle class. It marks a shift to doing things by executive order wherever possible to avoid protracted debates and delays by Congress.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Washington Post's veteran Middle East correspondent, Jim Hoagland, says there are some important lessons to take from the experience in Libya. The Arab rulers who entrenched themselves for decades wasted the bulk of their oil wealth. It was right for Palestinians to disassociate themselves from these regimes. The French took the brunt of the fight in helping Libya free itself from the Gaddafi regime. This is an understatement as without Sarkozy's initative and Cameron's unflagging support, without France and Britain's early support, Gaddafi's forces would have overrun Benghazi and ended the struggle for democracy in this part of the Arab world. U.S. President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates did little in the early days when there was dire need. Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel continuously resisted supporting France and Britain in Libya. The U.S. Obama administration and Turkey gave their support only after the perilous period- when the fate of the rebels fighting for freedom hung on a thread- was past. Hoagland calls Gates view of "feckless Europeans" shortsighted. Hoagland sees this as an opportunity for Europe to take a larger more active role. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration's $38.6 billon loan program using Stimulus funds was intended to create 65,000 jobs. Two years into this program, with half the money disbursed, the program has created a mere 3,545 new permanent jobs according to Energy Department figures. The Energy Department claims its $5.9 billion loan guarantees to Ford Motor Company to produce energy efficient vehicles by upgrading plants in 5 states saved 33,000 jobs. Brookings Institution analyst, Mark Muro, says the administration appears to be counting all the workers at these plants and not the jobs saved. 33,000 is close to half the Ford hourly and salaried U.S. employees. Harvard Business School professor, Josh Lerner, says there is a tendency to do a lot of fuzzy math in these figures. Muro points to the need to set large expectations for short term political calculations. The Energy Department's own figures show 20 "green tech"companies won loans so far under this project by negotiating with the Energy Department. If these companies hire the people they agreed to they would hire 8,050 new permanent workers. Only 10 of these companies have created or saved jobs so far. Of the other 10 some won loan approval only recently. The whole process is time consuming. Even if the Energy Department were to create the 60,000 jobs under the revised estimate, each job saved or created would come at a cost of 640,000 dollars in loan guarantees. Using the figure of $19.3 billion disbursed 2 years into this program (half of the $38.6 billion) and 8,050 jobs created, would give a cost of $2.4 million in loan guarantees for each job created- an astoundingly high figure. Other factors to consider are the additional jobs created downstream by suppliers to these companies as the administration states, and the cost of loans if as in the case of Solyndra a company goes bankrupt. Solyndra received a loan of over $500 million and represents 3% of loan guarantees. The administration and Congress assumed a failure rate of 5-10% for this program. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
An internal IMF document that estimates Europe's banks are short of capital by $273 billion. IMF managing director, Christine Lagarde, tries to downplay the report by saying this is not from a stress test that the IMF conducts. In August, Lagarde, called for an "urgent recapitalization" of European banks. As France's finance minister, Lagarde, steadfastly insisted French banks were well capitalized. France worked hard to prevent requirements for significant capital reserves under the Basel III rules. The higher capital requirements were supported by the U.S.. Simon Johnson said in his blog, that as long as European banks had inadequate capital to act as a buffer against losses, European countries had no safe route for restructuring their debts.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Obama in his speech at the Democratic National Convention describes Hillary Clinton as someone "who has been there for us- even if we haven't always noticed."  He warned against "home grown demagogues," and said " there were no serious solutions to pressing problems" at the Republican convention that was "not conservative, and wasn't particularly Republican."  

LyrArc Article Gist
In one of its first major votes the newly elected U.S. House of Representatives approved the Keystone XL pipeline by a vote of 252 to 161.