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.


BusinessWeek Original article ›
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....
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Paul Krugman points out that the Bush tax cuts if continued in the US for all income levels will cost $680 billion over the next decade. This estimate is from the Tax Policy Center.
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is 34% in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because president Obama let the high end Bush tax cuts to expire. It is the number to remember says Krugman- 34. In 2008 the figure was 28.2. Under Hillary Clinton the average tax rate for the top 1% would go up by 3.4 percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some of this would help pay for the tution plan to provide access to the middle class to public universities. Under populist Trump, Krugman points to the elimination of the inheritance tax and tax rates going down substantially, and no such programs to promote the upward mobility that everyone is talking about, and no way to pay for a big infrastructure building effort for growth and jobs- upward mobility that is the focus of every candidate's election campaign including Sanders, Trump in appealing to older white working class families, Clinton, Ryan, Bush, and others in both parties.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Timiraos and Shin provide more evidence in the WSJ that the hopes for generating more revenues from a huge tax cut have proven illusory in the past under Reagan and Bush. The question is whether the tax cuts can make up for the revenue lost through economic growth. In the short term there is a spurt of growth but in the long term this has left a revenue shortfall paid for by higher taxes later on.

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. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
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....
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. ...
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Buffett's view that higher capital gains taxes will not result in less business investment. He favors a $500,000 figure instead of the $250,000 proposed by president Obama for Bush tax cuts for incomes below that level.
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.
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
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.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
David Super, a professor at Georgetown University Law School, says letting the fiscal cliff cuts in spending go into effect is fairer to the poor and middle class than the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts proposed by president Obama and the Democrats. He says the pressure of public opinion would lead to some minideals for the Bush tax cuts to go to lower incomes and for restoring some funds to defense after the fiscal cliff agreement goes into effect, leading to a fairer outcome.
Economist Original article ›
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Porter points out that the Reagan tax cuts did little for the bottom half or one of two Americans, leaving them just where they were before the tax cuts. He cites World Wealth and Income Database data showing they earned $16,371 a year on average in today's dollars in 1980, by 1988 when Reagan left office they made $16,268. The Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 had the same result, with income before tax cuts at $17,827 and when Bush left office at $17,473, accounting for inflation. After factoring in taxes and transfers this was up only 0.4% a year. Under Reagan the top 1% increased income by 6% a year.

The distribution nature of the 2017 tax cuts do not suggest a different outcome from the Reagan and Bush tax cuts as they are designed disproportionately favoring the highest incomes, not even the higher incomes, and leaving the lower incomes practically untouched.

Economist Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Rising bond yields for the bonds of Germany, USA and Spain are seen for 2011. The absence of solutions for deficit reduction after the passing of Bush tax cuts in the US, and the debt crisis in Europe, create a situation with the potential for sovereign shocks in 2011.
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
President Obama's proposal on Dec. 17, 2012, in the fiscal cliff negotiations sets the figure at which Bush era tax cuts are permandently extended at $400,000 instead of the $250,000 in earlier proposals. Speaker Boehner's Republican proposal was for a figure of $1 million. The $400,000 proposal would mean that the top tax bracket of 35% would increase to 39.6%. Currently the tax rate increases to 35% from 33% at the cutoff point of $388,500. The White House plan now cuts spending by $1.22 trillion over 10 years. $800 billion comes from cuts to programs, with half of these cuts in federal health care programs, $200 billion in programs like farm price supports, $100 billion in military spending, and $100 billion in other domestic programs over which Congress has control. The White House proposal also supports additional spending on infrastructure, extension of expiring unemployment benefits, protection of "vulnerable populations" such as the disabled and wounded veterans on Supplemental Social Security benefits in inflation calculations, and permanently stop expansion of the alternative minimum tax affecting the middle class. On business investment the president's proposal would make permanent the credit for corporate research and development....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration's proposed budget for fiscal 2013- for the year beginning Oct. 1, 2012- shows the budget deficit for the year at over $1 trillion. It shows new revenue of $1.7 trillion over 10 years mostly from ending the Bush period tax cuts on families earning more than $250,000 a year, restoring the estate tax to the 2009 level and limiting subsidies for oil and gas companies. It proposes raising the tax rate on dividends from 15% to as much as 39.6%, for households earning more than $250,000 a year. This measure is expected to generate $206 billion over 10 years. The budget also offers "principles" for future tax reform by proposing the Buffett rule replace the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was not indexed for inflation so it has the weakness of putting more middle class taxpayers into AMT, leading to temporary solutions by Congress. The Buffett rule would have people earning more than $1 million pay a tax rate of at least 30%. Many wealthy Americans like Mitt Romney paid lower taxes using deductions to lower tax rates- Romney's tax disclosures show he paid effective tax rate of 14%. The White House says the budget will reduce the deficit by $3 trillion over 10 years through the new taxes, and small changes to Medicare and Medicaid and other spending cuts. This is in addition to the $1 trillion in spending cuts agreed to in a deficit reduction agreement in 2011 between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. The budget proposal proposes investment in education and transportation projects of $137 billion, and continuing through Dec. 2012, a tax break for businesses to increase investment. It includes mandatory spending of $2.7 billion for new community college programs, $6 billion to modernize schools, and $1.8 billion to make homes more energy efficient. It also increases the resources of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CFTC (two agencies overseeing the banks), $26 million for a new Interagency Trade Enforcement Center to counter unfair trade practices, and cuts U.S. postal delivery to 5 days a week. The result is a program designed to be balanced in terms of economic fairness, making modest investments in the future for education and energy, continuing policies to stimulate growth, and extending the date for bringing the deficit under control to 2018 instead of 2014 as planned earlier....
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. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The SuperCommittee in the U.S. Congress for deficit reduction reaches an impasse a week before the Thanksgiving deadline on the issue of tax increases and the extension of the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts automatically expire in December 2012, an option that Democrats are willing to live with, but is one the Republicans find it harder to accept.
The Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Instead of a jinx much to the contrary the US economy outlook for 2030 in Feb 2026- a surge in investment spending in 2026-2030, new manufacturing investments and lower energy costs, moderating inflation, are likely to propel the US economy ahead to 2030.The effect of tariffs as a policy making tool has been muted because of exemptions, reversal of tariff rates once key objectives were secure for tariffs as a way to get action on foreign policy as with Indian purchases of Russian oil, deals with Japan, South Korea and China, India, UK and the EU. Some sources such as the Philadelphia Fed see price rises reaching 3% in some inflation guages more than the moderate 2.5% in the consumer price index for January 2026. These sources see the hiring slowing down just as layoffs begin to happen in the latter part of the year which is a possibility but less likely. At this point in Feb 2026 there is a tendency not to layoff and to hang onto employees, and hiring has been slow in 2025. January's report of 130,000 jobs added is the first sign of strengthening of the jobs market. Overall a cautious view would be to call it a soft landing after the inflation surge of the covid period. Another way of looking at is is more in line with the strategic direction of the US economy- freeing up the economy with investments in energy,  reducing the key costs of production, tax policy of Bessent's complete one shot depreciation of equipment increasing business investment, tariff policy making the world trading system fairer and now more attuned to US interests, all creating an investment and jobs surge in 2026-2027. There is an added benefit from US efforts to free up the world trading system from the stranglehold placed on it by China with its control over world manufacturing. A dominance and unwise concentration gained from the serious mistakes of the Bush-Clinton period of not putting in safeguards for US factories and jobs (that form the backbone for families in neighborhoods towns and regions across the US), and US business interests growing indifference to the very communities they were based in by outshoring to China destroying whole regions in America. Even where it is criticized or seen as negative there are huge benefits when the US acted. Tariff increase on India is a clear example- it built Indian resilient attitude in June-Feb 2026, and during this period it cut funding Russia's war in Ukraine by sourcing energy from other sources, the US policy led to India and EU+ Germany signing trade agreements to double their effort and double trade and scientific cooperation ( a goal secured for the US as it reduces concentration in China), was followed by US signing its own trade agreement with India within days, and increases world trade of US and EU and Germany in ways that will bring 2.5 billion people into a strong partnership that overshadows anything that happened in China in the Clinton-Bush-Obama years of failure. ...
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. 

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Congressional Budget Office says the U.S. is likely to experience "a significant recession" if Congress does not prevent tax increases and spending cuts setup for January 2013. If the Bush era tax cuts expire as scheduled at the end of 2012, these tax increases and spending cuts of $100 billion on military and other programs would reduce the deficit in the fiscal year ending Sept 30, 2013 to $641 billion from the $1.13 trillion level at fiscal year end Sept 30, 2012. The impact would be to reduce the budget deficit from 7.3% of GDP to about 4%. The result- a contraction in GDP by 2.9% in the first half of 2013, and 0.5% for the full year, and unemployment would rise to 9.1% at the end of 2013 from about 8% today. If Congress postpones the tax increases and spending cuts the deficit would be at $1.04 trillion or 6.5% of GDP and unemployment would remain at about 8% at the end of 2013. A 9% unemployment rate with the "fiscal cliff' means 2 million fewer jobs. Romney's plan is to extend all the Bush era tax cuts for 1 more year and no spending cuts till he has a chance to make hs own review on spending cuts in 2013. Obama's plan is for extending all Bush era tax cuts except for those earning more than $250,000- resulting in savings of $2 billion in 2013 and $824 billion in 10 years- and making smaller spending cuts than Romney....
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Tax cuts initiated by the Bush administration and to a smaller degree by the Obama administration account for $6.3 trillon of the $10 trillion deficit in 2011. This is about half the $12.7 trillion gap between the $2.3 trillion surplus predicted by the CBO a decade ago for the year 2011 and the current deficit of $10.4 trillon. Two wars and higher defense spending add another $2 trillion. The Stimulus added $700 billon. The Prescription Drug Benefit for seniors $272 billion. This is based on new analysis of CBO data by the Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative. The record shows unrestrained spending by both parties has led to the current mess. Pete Domenici who chaired the Senate Budget Committee at the time of the first tax cuts in 2001 says "in the end the floodgates were opened." This also shows how quickly the situation can change if sound fiscal practices are abandoned. Two wars were financed entirely with borrowed money for the first time in U.S. history.
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Tom Steyer, founder of NextGen America points out the dangers of the Republican tax plan. He calls it a sham, in the WSJ. As evidence he cites a meeting of the WSJ CEO Council, where few hands went up when asked it they would increase investment if the tax bill passed. By saddling future generations with more debt the bill would hurt investment in infrastructure, health and education that are badly needed. This is not the time for another Reaganomics plan, says Steyer, as the middle class and working class have shrivelled under both presidents Bush and Obama, with the export of jobs overseas and the deep recession years. As proof that it does little for the middle and working class, he cites the Tax Policy Center's review of the bill showing 62% of the Senate's version of the tax bill benefits go to the top 1% of the earners. And that nearly half of American families will see their taxes rise under the bill eventually. This means nothing less than taking money from the middle and working class to fund the cuts, and gutting investments in health, education and infrastructure.  ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The failure of the Supercommitte in the U.S. Congress by the Thanksgiving deadline will not have any immediate consequences. This is because automatic spending cuts that are supposed to go into effect if the Supercommitte fails, do not go into effect till Jan 2013. This gives Congress another year in which to come up with necessary deficit savings. This is a major reason the two sides divided on major issues from the extension of Bush tax cuts and tax increases, and facing pressure from their party's interest groups and voter support groups, have no special incentive to reach a compromise. Such a compromise also means politicians taking the political risk of not being reelected. Another dynamic that is in play in November 2011 is that interest groups in the Republican and Democratic parties both now see the "sequester," as the automatic cuts are described, as a better alternative than any bipartisan agreement that cuts health and retirement programs. For anti-tax groups, the automatic cuts are better than a deal than includes tax increases. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) says: "We promised tax cuts. And I think we need to have cuts." For liberal groups, the trigger or sequester for the 2013 automatic cuts is better than a deal that cuts health and retirement programs. The trigger for automatic cuts will cut agency budgets, but spending for the poor and the elderly -including food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare- is exempted. Eric Kinson, co-director of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign, says no deal is better than one that is flawed, the extra time gives the country time to pause and think about the alternatives....
Washington Post Original article ›

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us