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.


WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Greg Ip of the WSJ provides this exceptional report offering readers remarkable clarity on what the Republican Tax Law does- its high and low points.  High Points 1. It reduces the corporate tax rate to bring it in line with other advanced industrialized countries. The corporate tax rate in Germany and Japan is 30%, in the UK it is 19%. For 5 years businesses can write off capital equipment immediately instead of depreciating over a couple of years. This could boost investment and growth. 2.  The law takes aim at deductions that led to distortions. It limits the mortgage interest deduction, and caps the deduction for state and local taxes. This removes the incentive to pay more for homes that exacerbated the housing crisis in 2008. The Alternative Minimum Tax is largely removed. The Low Points 1. The biggest drawback is that lawmakers did not properly fund the tax cuts. Of the 10 costliest tax breaks nine were not touched, including employer health insurance, retirement savings, capital gains. Only the state and local taxes deduction was reduced. And a new tax deduction  was created, a 20% tax deduction for small business (proprietors and partnerships) paying taxes on their individual tax returns. Taxes on the wealthy or value added taxes, reducing tax breaks, is how other advanced industrialized countries paid for the corporate tax cuts, but did not happen here. Additional economic growth  to generate added tax revenues is the way Republicans in Congress say this is funded. Yet this is a questionable assumption as Britain reduced the corporate tax rate to 19% without seeing a surge in economic growth, as Greg Ip pointed out in an earlier WSJ article. At best the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates $500 billion over a decade in added revenues from added growth leaving $1 trillion to be added to the deficit. The WhartonPenn Budget Model (WPBM) estimates only $140 to $367 bill from the additional economic growth resulting in added tax revenues. Under this model only 0.03 to 0.08 percent added U.S. economic growth per year is expected from the Republican Tax Cuts. Such a situation would be bad  for the U.S. as the gradual improvement in Debt to GDP ratio to 78% following the financial crisis of 2008 would be sharply reversed taking the ratio to 97% by 2027. An unsustainable trajectory which will require tax increases in a few years and hurt investment in education, health and infrastructure into the future. This is what worries many experts most on both sides of the political spectrum today about what the Republican Congress has pushed through for a legislative "victory." This is why experts believe this is not serious tax reform and will require a new effort after 2019.   ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out the major problem in the Republican tax cut legislation in 2017- not enough to help the middle class and adding 1 trillion dollars to the deficit. Krugman says even the Bush tax cuts had enough broad public approval because of help to the middle class. So what is the Republican message and rationale for taking this action? This is that the tax cuts will generate an economic boom . Yet the tax cuts in other countries including Britain, as Greg Ip pointed out in the Wall Street Journal recently, have shown that this does not lead to the boost in economic growth that is expected. Krugman agrees that this is unlikely to happen. There is another rational explanation and this is Republican need for a legislative victory heading into next years midterm elections. In which case the decision for tax cuts was not really based on the deep sense and conviction after much debate that this will inevitably create a surge in economic  growth. ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This view from the Editorial Board comes as Republicans in Congress geared up for a legislative victory decided to ignore the expert opinion of the Joint Committee on Taxation and polls showing a majority of Americans disapprove of the tax law. It says a "corrosive partisanship" that is affecting the nation has led to this decision. Not an informed consensus necessary to make real and lasting changes to the tax laws that increase growth without disrupting hard won gains in social cohesion after World War II.  Republicans pushed through a trillion and half dollars in tax cuts in the law that reduces the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%, and cut taxes in 2019 by 51 times ($51,400) for the top 1% of incomes compared to ($1000) for middle class families earning less than $100,000 (Tax Policy Center). The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates it will add $1 trillion to the U.S. deficit as only $500 billion is expected in increase in government revenues over a decade from additional economic growth. This is supported by evidence from countries such as Britain that implemented this type of corporate tax cut without generating much economic growth, says Greg Ip in the Wall Street Journal. The "victory" then comes at a high cost says the Washington Post- in years to come programs to help the growing lower middle class and working class will be subject to cuts and taxes will have to rise to balance budgets.   ...
Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
As the final Republican tax bill is debated in Congress on December 19, 2017, Senator Bob Casey cited the following points from the Joint Committee on Taxation Report on the floor of the Senate.  1. Americans building their hopes that their pay checks in February 2018 will be increasing are in for a big disappointment said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a senior member of the Finance Committee. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimate is that for the 57 million families making less than 100,000 dollars a year the tax cuts in the Republican legislation will either not reduce their taxes or reduce the taxes by about $100 a year. 2. The bill does little for the big tasks facing America of rebuilding failing infrastructure. Senator Casey cited 4500 bridges needing repair or replacement in Pennsylvania alone. It also does little for health care access for middle class families and is likely to lead to 10% increase in health care premiums. Affordability of college and other hurdles of middle class and working class families remain unaddressed.   3. The $9 billion in the estate tax cuts would finance the Children's Health Insurance program which has expired.  4. The $36 billion in tax cuts for corporations comes at a time when corporate profits are at the highest they have been in 15 years, according to Vanguard founder Bogle. He also points out that wages as a percentage of GDP are the lowest in 15 years. The tax cuts in the Republican bill are not likely to correct this imbalance.  5. The share of GDP of people making more than one million dollars in 1980 was 11%, this is up now in 2017 to 20%. This has led to questions about the wisdom of these tax cuts which disproportionately benefit a very small percentage of Americans who do not need these tax cuts, and come with significant sacrifices for the middle class in terms of what is available in public services, and the cost to their children as infrastructure and access to health and education is made more distant because of a growing U.S. debt from this tax cut. The big problem then with this bill is that it further damages intergenerational mobility in the U.S., undermining the foundation of a democratic society. Damage has already happened in the past three decades as Federal Reserve chairman Janet Yellen pointed out at a conference on Economic Opportunity and Inequality on Oct. 17, 2014, saying-"The past several decades have seen the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality following the Great Depression." This is why there is substantial agreement in the media from the Wall Street Journal's Greg Ip to Krugman in the New York Times that the bill fails to correct a harmful trend, and goes further in the wrong direction for a democratic society.       ...
The New York Times Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Senators approved the U.S. Republican tax bill 51 to 49 votes on December 1, 2017. The 500 page bill was approved with arewritten version containing more changes made at the last minute to get it passed in the early morning hours. It was passed along party lines with all Democrats opposing. The last minute changes were made to get Collins of Maine and Johnson of Wisconsin on board. A concession was made on DACA young undocumented immigrants for Flake of Arizona. In this way its passage was ensured after failure to repeal Obama health legislation. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation report says the bill would increase the deficit by $1 trillion over a decade. Corker of Tennessee opposed the bill for this reason, but failed to convince other senators who believe the bill will generate robust growth and the deficit report is too pessimistic. The tax cut bill helps 70% of middle class families and may not help others because of removal of deductions such as the one for state and local income taxes. Business gets a permanent tax rate of 20 percent instead of 35 percent which is made permanent. Owners of small business not set up as corporations also get a tax break for small business. To offset the cost of the changes the Alternative Minimum Tax for corporations is retained and a tax on corporations with assets held overseas was increased. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The corporate share buybacks announced by U.S. companies in the last 3 months now exceed $200 billion, more than double than in 2017, according to a WSJ analysis. This includes Cisco, Wells Fargo, AbbVie, Amgen, Alphabet (Google). The surge in corporate buybacks started in December after the tax cut of the Trump administration cut U.S. taxes by $1.5 trillion over a decade, cutting the corporate tax rate for large companies from 35% to 21%. The tax cut also included a one time tax for repatriation of $2 trillion held by U.S. companies overseas. This WSJ analysis says there are questions whether the tax cut is working, whether it will encourage new investment, lead to companies increasing wages, or whether this will largely result in corporations returning money to investors with larger dividends and corporate buybacks. Morgan Stanley's analysis of earnings transcripts of companies in the S&P 500 show 44% of the companies say they will use some portion of the tax gains to make capital investments and increase wages, with 28% going in the opposite direction and using them to return money to shareholders. Experts caution that corporate buybacks do not always lead to the company's stock outperforming the stock market. The future of companies depends more on the capital investments and in human capital. There is a sense that workers wages have stagnated since the mortgage financial crisis in 2008, with the economic crisis, globalization and outsourcing, reduced alternatives for workers, geographic pressures in relocation, all pushing wages down.  This is being closely watched with articles on stagnation in wage growth this week in the NYT and WSJ, and earlier in the Economist magazine. Reports on the Trump administration tax cuts passed by a Republican Congress suggested a large tilt towards benefitting the highest income households. Problem with higher stock prices reaching the broader middle class are recognized in that one third of stocks are owned by overseas investors, and 84% of the remaining stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10%. Republicans have turned to bonuses typically of $1000 per person given by companies yet this amounts now to about a few billion dollars over an estimated 4 million Americans, says this WSJ analysis. This is not enough to justify a huge tax cut and raise the deficit by over a trillion over 10 years on the assumption that it would lead to higher wages or capital investment when about $200 billion goes to boosting stock prices. This comes at a time when the American middle class is not broadly invested in the stock market after the exit following the battering stock prices took during the 2008 financial crisis. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) who seeks deeper spending cuts, Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) who sees Medicaid co pay for able bodied at 100% of federal poverty level as a "sick tax," Lisa Murkowski who differs on taxing providers, and other Congressmen and Women in the Republican party are opposing the new tax cut package of president Trump. Senator Rand Paul (R- Kentucky opposes the raising of the debt ceiling, and is also opposed.

Most of the main Medicaid cuts come after 2029 after Trump no longer is president, so that Republicans who want to see the shrinking of the Medicaid program so it meets only needs of the most needy, want to see faster cuts while Trump is president. And there are other Republicans in Congress who face tight elections and see big risks of losing their seats.

 

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump's 2017 budget is an effort to reshape spending priorities by the Republican party. Apart from Medicare and Social Security all other entitlement programs from the days of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society are subject to cuts. Deep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, including introducing work requirements. The philosophy behind it is that compassion will now be measured not by how large these programs are but by how much the government can get people "off these programs and back in charge of their lives,"  according to Budget Director Mulvaney.  The cuts are $616 billion to Medicaid and Children's Health programs, $193 billion in cuts to Food Stamps, $143 billion in student loans, $72 billion in disability programs. The overhaul of the Affordable Health Care Act is part of this change. The reallocation would put more money into infrastructure for $200 billion, and in tax cuts, $19 billion in a parental leave program and $29 billion for veterans programs, plus added spending on the military. William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Republican who worked on budget issues says it will be politically difficult as the cuts to lower income groups come with tax cuts for small businesses and higher income individuals.  Beyond the policy priorities there is an area where both Republicans and Democrats are skeptical of the budget. This is how it impacts the U.S. debt. Under Congressional Budget Office estimates the U.S. debt as a percentage of GDP which rose to about 75% after the Great Recession starting in 2008, is projected to grow to about 85%. In sharp contrast the Trump administration estimates of the Office of Management and Budget are for it to drop to 65% based on rosier estimates of 2% inflation, 3% growth for the decade ahead. Experts say this is unlikely once the Fed raises interest rates and the unemployment rate currently at 4.4% leads to rising inflation, undercutting growth which has remained below 2% for a long period. These concerns are also voiced by Hilsenrath in the WSJ based on the experience of other countries such a Britain that cut corporate taxes without seeing an uptick in economic growth. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Senator McCain's vote for the Republican tax bill is uncertain, says this report in NYT. McCain opposed the 2001 and 2003 Bush administration tax cuts on the grounds of benefiting the rich and not doing enough for the middle class. McCain is known to oppose large spending that aggravates the deficit, and the current Republican plan would add $1.5 trillion to the deficit. In 2003 McCain said on the Senate floor he could not support the use of "billions of federal dollars to cut taxes for our nation's wealthiest." How will he vote this time? Holtz-Eakin, his policy adviser in the 2008 campaign says he is not sure, it all depends on what is better, the status quo or this change. 

WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ confirms other commentary and reporting in different media sources that the Republican Tax Law lacks popular support. It cites the latest WSJ/NBC poll showing deep skepticism about the law on whether as Republicans claim the middle class benefits from this tax cut. More than two thirds in the survey, including 68% of independents, see the law as giving tax cuts mostly to the wealthy and corporations. This is higher than other polls taken before the bill was passed. As little as 17% say their family would get a tax cut. A previous poll showed this at 25%, showing that as Americans look at it more closely it is raising more questions about fairness. This makes Republicans face a steep climb as they try to convince people to the contrary.

Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Republicans and Democrats decided to tackle the U.S. fiscal cliff in several steps. The first step for the Bush tax cuts to be extended to single earners with income under $400,000, and couples earning under $450,000 was part of the agreement reached Jan. 1, 2013. Republicans see this as protecting small business owners who generate jobs in the U.S. economy. Democrats see this as progress in taxing the wealthy to reduce spending cuts in other programs. As expected the deal was reached between Senate colleagues Republican Mitch McConnell and former Democratic senator and Vice President Joe Biden, as rapport is missing in the relationship between Speaker Boehner and president Obama. The $110 fiscal cliff spending cuts on entitlements and defence will be postponed for 2 months till early March under the deal. Debt ceiling will not be raised and negotiations will be needed again by the end of Feb. 2013 to raise the debt ceiling. By March 27, 2013 short term funding measures lapse. Republicans see accepting tax cuts on the wealthy as a way to remove this issue in future negotiations to focus on spending cuts needed to improve U.S. finances. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Republican tax bill that passed the House and Senate in Dec. 2017 is likely to increase the deficit in the range of about $516 billion according to Tax Foundation or $ 1trillion according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, after boost to growth is included. This time in an effort to get a win Republicans cast aside doubts about the effects on the deficit to get it passed. During the Obama years tax legislation failed to get Republican support because of impact on deficits. The reluctance of president Obama to touch the deductions as proposed by the Simpson-Bowles Commission showed the politically cautious approach taken by Obama.  The new bill was examined by the NYT for its impact on various income groups. For people making over $50,000 over 80% get a cut in taxes, about 10% see no difference and the rest see increase in taxes. This goes up by a few percentage points to 84-85% in cuts for people making over 200,000 to $ 1 million, and drops to 80% for over $1 million incomes. About 20% see an increase in taxes for incomes over $1 million.  As evidence of how the tax bill impacts in greater detail this is not provided by the NYT, and shows that the impact of the bill is still not fully understood.     ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Stephen Moore of the WSJ interviews Grover Norquist, head of the advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform. Republicans in Congress and other Republican leaders have signed on to the "no new taxes pledge" promoted by Norquist. There is increasing pressure on Norquist as the media, White House, and executives on Wall Street call for flexible positions from both sides on taxes and spending cuts. Norquist insists that not much has changed. He says that the increase in taxes on the rich is only symbolic and has to be followed up with increasing taxes on the middle class. He cites a Rasmussen poll that shows 75% of Americans believe this. Norquist is convinced that the Democrats with their spending plans are out to take the U.S. in the direction of European economies, the tax increase on the rich would be followed up with a energy tax or a value added tax to pay for unrestrained spending. His solution is for Republicans to pass a bill that extends the current tax rates past January after roughing it through the tax cliff date. Even the sequester option is better than increasing taxes says Norquist, letting the Defense Department make the cuts where appropriate. Norquist does not favor the option of reducing tax loopholes and deductions as a way to increase taxes as proposed by Simpson Bowles commission and Ryan-Romney in the election campaign. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. Senate voted 51 to 49 on a Democratic party measure for further reductions in 2012 Social Security payroll taxes for workers and employers, including a surtax on incomes over $1 million. A measure supported by the Republican party to pay for the payroll tax cut by reducing the Federal payrolls was defeated, with half the Republicans voting against it. Democrats hope to use this issue to show Republicans favor the rich over the middle class, as the payroll tax cut benefits most Americans. Polls show Americans by a large majority see Republican policies favoring the rich. A New York Times/CBS poll in October showed 7 of 10 Americans feel this way. Pollster Geoff Garin says the income inequality issue is beginning to override other issues including antigovernment feeling. This is one way in which the Occupy Wall Street Movement's slogan of "the 99 percent" has resonated with U.S. public opinion. The Democratic party sees this as an opportunity to define the campaign issues for 2012, with Republicans running for reelection cautious about being seen this way....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This Washington Post analysis of the Republican tax bill gives an exceptional view of the bill's impact and provisions. This is the first major change to the tax laws since 1986. The size of the bill is $1.5 trillion, with the Joint Committe on Taxation projection that the bill will increase tax revenues over a decade by $500 billion, meaning that it will cost $1 trillion being added to the deficit. What the bill does: 1. It offers a permanent tax cut to corporations by reducing the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent. Industries benefiting the most are mining, real estate, technology, manufacturing. 2. The individual tax cuts expire in 2025. They are skewed to disproportionately help highest income Americans, much less lower income Americans and much more highest income Americans compared to high income Americans. In this sense it is skewed in a an unusual way to the highest earning Americans- a sort of Trump effect in place. The top 1% get a tax break of $51,140 in 2019, middle income people earning about $100,000 get about $1000 a year in 2019, tax payers earning around $50,000 about $380, and those earning less than $25,000 about $60 a year in 2019. Taxpayers earning about 150,000 get about $2000 a year tax cut. (Tax Policy Center) 3. The basic assumption is that tax cuts are revenue neutral if there is economic growth and most of that growth comes from corporations investing in growth. The problem as Greg Ip points out in the Wall Street Journal is that countries trying thsi approach in the past such as Britain have not seen such growth materialize. Corporate profits are the highest in 15 years as percentage of GDP, according to Vanguard founder Bogle, and are now 20% of GDP compared 11% in 1980. If corporations did not invest with this level of profits how much additional investment is going to happen, ask critics, especially as demand drives growth and wages are not boosted under this plan.  4.  Because the bill's changes to current law makes it likely that 13 million less Americans will be insured over a decade- from fewer people signing up for Medicaid and on exchanges for Affordable Care Act- it will hurt lower income Americans. Skewing at both ends of the income spectrum of this type is rare in American history particularly in the twentieth century after the Depression of the 1930's, and poses risks for social cohesion, making it unpopular with most Americans. A CBS News poll taken Dec 3-5 shows 53% of all Americans opposed, only 35% support the tax bill just passed in Congress.  5. Then why did Republicans do this? Republicans needed a legislative success after failure to repeal the Obama Affordable Care law. This pressure led to passage with Republicans probably aware that this is temporary tax reform requiring a real effort by both parties working together after the midterm elections in 2018 and as the presidential election approaches in 2019.    ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Two law school professors at Fordham University, Kysar and Sugin, say the Republican tax bill is extreme because it was not based on working with Democrats. As a result not a single Democrat supported this tax legislation. The problem- when the Republicans lose their majority in Congress- a serious possibility after the loss in a Senate race in deep red state Alabama- the whole issue of tax legislation would come up again. This is not without precedent as the Democrats won the presidential election in 2008 and Republicans made a sweeping victory in Congress in 2010.This is why Senators Casey and Wyden (Democrats) and Orrin Hatch (Republican) head of the Finance Committee stated on the floor of the Senate on Dec. 19, 2017, that the next time and in future both parties need to engage in real discussion on taxes. The lack of serious discussion on the health care bill passed by Obama in 2008 has created some of the same problems today that this tax bill passed in a similar way without discussion with the other party is likely to face by 2019. No one needs to look further to realize that the political system is failing in its job of grappling and solving the nation's problems. Kysar and Sugin say this bill is like the 1981 tax cuts skewed towards high income Americans which failed to generate economic growth as intended an led to a swift reversal with tax increases in 1982 and years that followed in 1983, 1984. President Obama failed to address tax reform after appointing the Bowles Commission and not taking up its recommendations to reduce deductions. Another effort at changing the system was made without serious debate, a kind of Republican response to the way Democrats passed the Affordable Care healthcare bill in 2008. Real changes to update the tax laws may be put off till both parties can wrap their hands around the problem together. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
How to deal with Bush era tax cuts is a big issue dividing Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. If no deal is reached by Jan 1. taxes on the average middle income family would increase by $2000 in 2013. Median inflation adjusted income declined 8.9% to $50,054 in 2011 from $54,999 in 1999, and economic mobility has fallen. The Democrat's position is for Bush tax cuts to apply to incomes below $250,000. Peter Orszag of the Congressional Budget Office and Jared Bernstein point out that while this makes the tax code move in a progressive direction it also creates handicaps in providing a sufficient revenue base to support middle class spending programs down the road. According to the Tax Polcy Center, if Congress is unable to reach agreement and all tax increases go into effect Jan 1, taxpayers in the bottom 20% of income distribution would see a $412 increase in taxes compared to an increase of $633,000 for the top 0.1%. New York Mayor Bloomberg has supported eliminating the Bush tax cuts for all groups, saying there is no free lunch. Alan Krueger, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, says the trends caused by globalization and skill-biased technological change which have increased inequality are likely to continue or accelerate. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Big Beautiful Tax and Spending Bill in the US Congress faces close votes in the US Senate with Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, both Republicans against it.  The Senate version has additional cuts to Medicaid funding. Tillis expressed concern about these cuts. Senator Rand Paul is opposed to increasing the deficit for enlarged spending and tax cuts. Republicans and DJT have close votes in the Senate and in the Congress. Republicans Murkowski of Alaska and Curtis of Utah want to change the early phaseouts of tax credits to the renewable energy industry in the Senate bill, and the excise tax after 2027 to avoid buying from China and develop American manufacturing in renewables. Senator Collins of Maine has an amendment to add $25 billion for rural healthcare and rural hospitals to offset the effects of large Medicaid cuts. Collins plan also lets taxes revert to 39.6% from 37% for married couples incomes over $50 million.  The bill then heads back to the House for changes by Wednesday, July 2, for a goal to have it on the president's desk by July 4th, Friday. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Christina Romer, former chairwoman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, puts forward a strategy to get deficit reduction and avoid the "fiscal cliff" of automatic cuts based on the Simpson-Bowles commission recommendations to reduce tax expenditures, deductions and loopholes. She says let Republicans in Congress determine where spending on infrastructure improvements should go as the needs are so diverse and widespread and this will get constructive input to improve the focus on vital areas. Earlier efforts on road building for stimuls spending were criticized for generating temporary work but not creating long term benefits and synergies.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Brooks is critical of Republican intransigence over reducing tax expenditures in the negotiations with the Obama administration in early July 2011.The Bowles-Simpson commission on the U.S. budget deficit specifically targeted a number of tax expenditures for savings to reduce the budget deficit. This resistance comes from a ideological fervour for no tax increases that does not grapple with the realities of spending cuts and the need for an approach that looks for savings wherever they can be found. That approach also leaves room for maintaining spending and not making deep cuts where such spending adds to future growth prospects for the U.S.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
New York city Mayor Bloomberg, says President Obama and Republicans should stop promising a free lunch, or something for nothing. He points to Obama's reelection strategy of higher taxes for the rich- by taxing those earning over $1 million at minimum of 30% in federal income taxes- as generating $1.1 billion, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. This would make little difference on a federal government with $1.2 trillion gap in spending and revenue. And he says Republicans who say making the Bush tax cuts permanent while at the same time cutting the deficit are promising a free lunch, with no connection to reality. The answer says Bloomberg should be to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for all groups, for shared sacrifice, and for Congress to pass the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan with $4 trillion in savings on an up or down vote.
NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
A Trump-Vance nomination with its huge tariffs inside a Republican shell with its preference for tax cuts is with a large degree of certainty likely to put America further behind China, slipping even further by a decade. And slipping in renewable energy and in meeting the aspirations of ordinary Americans. Most of the public does not realize that Trump-Vance 60% tariffs and Republican preference for tax cuts over infrastructure spending would create inflation and lack of growth in a Trump-Vance second term. Things would get worse because of the contradictions existing in the choice of tariff preferring Trump in a Republican party that sees tax cuts not infrastructure spending -even when desperately needed- as the answer to every economic problem. Without a clear policy of making the trillion dollar investments in the US economy, in manufacturing, in renewable energy, in chips and science, as it has under Biden the US under Trump-Vance policies would have two serious problems- first it would revive inflation. 60% tariffs on Chinese imports and 10% tariffs on other nations proposed by Trump-Vance would increase inflation. In the absence of the infrastructure investment that Biden has put in place it would create both a lack of growth for the jobs missing that come from infrastructure that is badly needed in a aging dilapidated infrastructure economy, and the inflation that the high tariffs would engineer. The benefits would not be great if China chooses to find other ways to conduct business and continues to keep its currency at levels that promote its exports. Even today Chinese products enter the US through other countries or when China builds factories in the US as Japan has done. The Republican aversion to tackling Chinese industrial challenges in the same way that China does by actively supporting American manufacturers would give China another decade of advantage as America slips even further behind in chips, science and manufacturing. This is the real problem in mixing Trump-Vance to the Republican philosophies on the economy which are not right for this point in time whatever their merits may have been in the 1980's when America was the industrial leader in the world.   ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
House Democrats in the U.S. see the Republican health care plan making the same mistakes in 2017 that the Democrats made in 2008. With the passage of the bill in the House of Representatives with a vote margin on May 4, 2017, rushed through in the way the Obama bill was also rushed through, the nation remains as divided as ever on the issue of health care. The Republicans favoring limiting subsidies and cutting Medicaid, and using some of the savings for a tax cut. The Democrats favoring mandated coverage for all and large subsidies to reduce the number of uninsured Americans, with expansion of Medicaid for very low incomes. Democrats in the House say the Republican House bill will result in Republicans losing seats in the House in midterm elections.

New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Posturing and negotiating between Republicans and Democrats on deficit reduction before the "fiscal cliff" of automatic spending cuts and tax increases on Jan. 1, 2013.

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