income

Cities Getting Hit Hardest Since The Recession: Report

by The Huffington Post on January 19, 2012

Huffington Post…

Official recovery or not, it turns out that cities around the world still have a long way to go to get back to where they were before the downturn. More than half of the world’s 200 largest cities have yet to return to their pre-recession levels in either income or employment, according to a new report from the Brookings Institute . Compared to the pre-recession years of 1993 to 2007, cities all around the world are struggling, especially in North America and Western Europe. In cities like Dublin and New Orleans, income growth rates decline last year. Chinese cities, which have generally fared much better through the recession, are also seeing a drop off. Industry hubs like Beijing and Guangzhou have seen growth rates drop by over half compared to pre-recession levels. “China took proactive steps last year to cool off its real estate market, which people were concerned was facing the same kind of bubble condition as in the U.S. and Europe prior to the recession,” Alan Berube, an author of the report told The Huffington Post. “In the process of doing that it managed to cool off the economy altogether.” The Brookings findings for U.S. cities mirror other reports. Brookings, which looked only at the 57 largest cities in the U.S., found that none “had fully recovered its recession induced losses by 2011,” while and IHS Global Insight report found that only 26 of the nation’s 363 cities had returned to pre-recession levels of employment. While the Brookings report notes significant employment growth declines in cities like Las Vegas, Berube said some cities have faired better than others, a pattern that will likely continue going forward. “In the United States it will be a mixed bag,” he said. “Some places will be back to where they were prior to the recession, growing their income and employment levels — not at a rapid rate — but one that should bring unemployment down. Others are still trying to escape the vortex leftover from the recession.” Here are the ten cities whose income growth has dropped most significantly since before the recession, according to the Brookings Institute :

More:
Cities Getting Hit Hardest Since The Recession: Report

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Rich Less Likely To Be Attuned To Others’ Suffering, Study Finds

by The Huffington Post on December 22, 2011

Huffington Post…

Social psychologists are making an argument that Occupy Wall Street protesters have been saying for months: Many rich people just aren’t in the habit of thinking of others. According to researchers at the University of California-Berkeley, people who grew up in economically comfortable circumstances are less attuned to the suffering of other people . In multiple trials that involved both questionnaires and physical-response tests, the researchers found that young adults whose upbringing involved some degree of financial struggle were quicker and more likely to register signs of empathy than young adults who came from affluent backgrounds. Such conclusions are especially relevant now, as the Occupy movement continues to focus national attention and criticism on the growing divide between rich and poor . While some wealthy people have defended themselves as merely embodying the ideals of American capitalism — a system where, the argument goes, anyone can make it to the top if they’re willing to work hard — many Occupy protesters have offered a less flattering theory: that the rich, as a class, simply aren’t concerned with the well-being of anyone else. The findings of the UC Berkeley team seem to suggest that this might be true, though the researchers make a point of saying it’s likely the result of inexperience on the part of the rich, not necessarily malice. “It’s not that the upper classes are coldhearted,” Jennifer Stellar, a social psychologist at UC Berkeley and the lead author of the study, is quoted as saying in a press release. “They may just not be as adept at recognizing the cues and signals of suffering because they haven’t had to deal with as many obstacles in their lives.” This particular piece of research appeared earlier this month in the journal Emotion , but one of the academics involved in the study, psychologist Dacher Keltner, has published at least twice before on the correlation between economic struggle and empathetic response. Last October, Keltner was part of a research team that found that wealthy people had greater difficulty reading facial expressions . In August, Keltner and others argued that financial security seems to be associated with an impulse to think about oneself more than others — and that a dozen separate studies had produced the same implication . But the relationship between wealth and compassion may work both ways. In 2005, researchers found that if a stock trader suffers from some kind of emotional impairment — that is, brain damage that prevents them from fully experiencing their own emotions — it may allow them to make more profit on the market , since they can make decisions based more firmly in rationalism. And in what may be a more extreme example of the same phenomenon, research published earlier this year suggests that some stockbrokers actually have a more pronounced competitive streak than diagnosed psychopaths .

Excerpt from:
Rich Less Likely To Be Attuned To Others’ Suffering, Study Finds

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

A Tax On Income Inequality Itself

December 19, 2011

THE progressive reformer and eminent jurist Louis D. Brandeis once said, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” Brandeis lived at a time when enormous disparities between the rich and the poor led to violent labor unrest and ultimately to a reform movement.

Read the full article →

BlackBerry Maker’s Net Income Plummets

December 15, 2011

TORONTO (AP) — BlackBerry maker Research In Motion Ltd. said Thursday that new phones deemed critical to the company’s future will be delayed until late 2012. Mike Lazaridis, one of the company’s co-CEOs, said the BlackBerry 10 phones will need a highly integrated chipset that will not be available until mid-2012, so the company can now expect them to ship late in the year. He disclosed the delay on a conference call with analysts. Analysts say RIM’s future depends on the new software platform. RIM needs to come up with a compelling BlackBerry as U.S. users have moved on to flashier touch-screen phones such as Apple’s iPhone and various competing models that run Google’s Android software. Earlier Thursday, RIM said BlackBerry sales will fall sharply in the holiday quarter, providing further evidence that it is struggling to compete. It also has been having a hard time finding a niche in the tablet-computer market, which is dominated by Apple’s iPad. RIM continues to enjoy success overseas, but market researcher NPD Group says RIM’s market share of smartphones in the U.S. has declined from 44 percent in 2009 to 10 percent this year. The company’s stock fell 7 percent in extended trading Thursday. The delay in BlackBerry 10 phones is the latest in a series of setbacks for the once-iconic Canadian company. Its PlayBook tablet computer hasn’t been selling well, forcing the company to sell them at a deep discount. A widespread outage frustrated tens of millions of BlackBerry users in October. RIM fired two executives after their drunken rowdiness forced the diversion of an Air Canada flight. The head of its operations in Indonesia faces charges related to a stampede at a recent promotional sale where dozens of consumers were injured. RIM said its net income sank 71 percent as revenue fell and the company took a large accounting charge on the PlayBook. RIM earned $265 million, or 51 cents per share, for its fiscal third quarter that ended Nov. 26. That compares with $911 million, or $1.74 per share, a year ago. The company said revenue fell 6 percent to $5.2 billion. The PlayBook charge was $485 million before taxes. The company shipped 14.1 million BlackBerry smartphones during the third quarter and 150,000 PlayBook tablets, but its fourth-quarter guidance was what investors focused on because it had warned about the third-quarter results earlier. Although RIM has said it would sell fewer BlackBerrys in the current quarter, the forecast given Thursday appeared worse than expected. RIM said it would only ship between 11 million and 12 million BlackBerrys in the fourth quarter compared to 14.8 million in the previous fourth quarter. RIM also said its fourth-quarter earnings would be in the range of 80 to 95 cents per share on revenue in the range of $4.6 billion to $4.9 billion. Analysts had been expecting earnings of $1.15 a share on revenue of $5.04 billion, according to FactSet. Peter Misek, an analyst at Jefferies & Co. in New York, said earlier that if RIM reveals that it will ship no more than 12 million BlackBerrys in the current quarter, then the company needs to get its new phones out fast. Otherwise, RIM could lose money in future quarters as it continues to struggle to sell the current, stopgap models. On Thursday, BGC Financial analyst Colin Gillis said the guidance was terrible and wondered if it was the start of a collapse. “If consumers abandon this platform it can happen pretty quickly,” Gillis said. “Don’t think this is the bottom.” Jim Balsillie, the other co-CEO, said the last few quarters have been among the most challenging times in the company’s most recent history. He said executives are working to turn it around, but said it may take time. “We are not satisfied with the performance of the business in the United States,” Balsillie said. Balsillie said he and Lazaridis have reduced their cash salary to $1 per year, though they will continue to earn stock options and other compensation. RIM’s stock fell $1.11 to $14.02 in extended trading Thursday after the results were released. The stock has lost about 75 percent of is value this year. A company that was worth more than $70 billion a few years ago now has a market value of around $8 billion. “We recognize our shareholders may feel we’ve fallen short,” Balsillie said.

Read the full article →

Another Solution To Income Inequality? The Progressive Consumption Tax

December 7, 2011

By pulling a simple tax lever, we could reduce the costs of growing income disparities, while at the same time freeing up several trillion dollars of additional resources each year—more than enough to pay down the federal debt and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure—all without requiring painful sacrifices from anyone. This essay is adapted from Robert H. Frank’s recently published book, The Darwin Economy.

Read the full article →

Blythe McGarvie: Income and Wealth

December 7, 2011

Years ago, while comparing various economic systems, I learned that one indication of the economic values in a culture is the reaction of a person seeing someone else driving a Mercedes sedan. An American wonders how he can afford one someday. The Soviet wonders how he can take it away. The Englishman wonders how to tax it. Today, as I listen to the pundits ruminate about the 1% of the U.S. population controlling most of the wealth in the U.S., it strikes me that we need to clarify what kind of culture we want to create. I asked Fareed Zakaria , host of CNN’s international affair program, why he and his guests frequently confuse individuals earning income and societies distributing wealth. He acknowledged that a distinction should be made. So, I am offering a simple distinction. Earning income occurs when someone works, provides a service or product and is paid by an employer, customer or borrower. Distributing wealth occurs when the government takes someone’s earned income either through taxes or usage fees and gives it to another person. Using the terms “income” and “wealth” interchangeably obfuscates the logic for assessing how the economy really works. Definitions: A sociology professor offers broader definitions : Generally speaking, wealth is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. While the debate about income and wealth can be confused, intentionally or unintentionally, governments are the only entities that can impose taxes. Obviously, taxes have a long history in human society; the forms of taxation might change, but formal governments have a constant need to tax. Modern Society needs some funds for basic public services. However, the idea of wealth redistribution is less about raising adequate funds to perform government services and more about pursuing some subjective conception of social justice. Countries that have tried to impose economic egalitarianism have generally not prospered; a sinking pond lowers all boats. Today the United States primarily taxes income. Conversely, Italy has imposed a wealth tax for years and in September tried to increase the rates. With the new focus on the wealth tax, the Financial Times reported Italians’ anger “directed at the country’s top-earning footballers, who were exempted from the wealth tax.” Some of you may think it is a good idea to tax wealth, but to make exemptions for some people. I do not. In fact, we can learn from the case of Italy. Economist Nouriel Roubini, addressing the high debt in Italy that must be funded wrote in the FT on November 29, 2011: Influential figures in Italy have suggested a wealth tax could achieve the same reduction in public debt. But a debt restructuring is superior. To reduce the debt ratio to 90 per cent of GDP, a wealth tax would need to raise €450 billion, or 30 per cent of GDP. Even if payment of such a capital levy were spread over a decade that would imply an increase in taxes equivalent to 3 per cent of GDP for 10 years running; the resulting drop in disposable income and consumption would make Italy’s recession a depression. Restructuring the Debt or the Culture: When you read that a country or a company is restructuring debt, recognize that the losers will be the people or entities that lent or invested capital in the situation. After a restructure, investors wisely are hesitant to lose more capital and to invest in the same entity. Even the recent bankruptcy of American Airlines reveals that the shareholders lost their wealth over one year when each share valued at $8.90 dropped to $0.40 in November. Bankruptcy laws allow for contracts to be re-written and debts to be forgiven. The important point is that trust, risk tolerance, and the culture of investing changes when someone dictates reduced economic terms and attaches your wealth. America’s Poet Laureate Philip Levine, when asked about his hostility for the upper class and how he fantasized about firing a gun at every Cadillac he saw, stated “I think if we started making radical changes in the way wealth is distributed in this country, it would be a hell of a lot better.” I am not sure which country’s economic system he would prefer. If he wants to be Robin Hood, that’s thievery or if he wants to live off others’ wealth, that will kill the Golden Goose for this and future generations.

Read the full article →

Steve Fraser: Take Our Children, Please!

November 29, 2011

A Modest Proposal for Occupy Wall Street Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com In 1729, when Ireland had fallen into a state of utter destitution at the hands of its British landlords, Jonathan Swift published a famous essay , “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public.”  His idea was simple: the starving Irish should sell their own children to the rich as food.  His inspiration, as it happened, came from across the Atlantic.  As he explained, “I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young, healthy child well nourished is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragoust.” Inspired in turn by Swift, I want to suggest that we put in motion a similar undertaking: on January 16th, Martin Luther King Day, citizens from around the country should gather at the New York Stock Exchange on Wall Street.  Let’s call this macabre gathering — with luck and even worse times, it should be mammoth — “We Surrender” or “Restore Debtor’s Prisons” or “De-Fault Is Ours” or “Collateralize Us.”  And plan on a mirthful day of mourning. The basic idea is that we offer ourselves up, 99% of us anyway, on the altar of high finance as a sacrifice to the bond markets.  It was Karl Marx who first observed that high finance is “the Vatican of capitalism.”  How right he turned out to be — right with a vengeance!  The Death of Democracy Whole governments, democratically elected, are collapsing, or abdicating on orders from our secular version of the papacy.  Who will weep for the passing of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi?  Not many, surely.  Still, it’s appalling that, in Italy as in Greece, governing authority has been usurped by technocrats, elected by no one, answerable only to the European institutions of high finance that installed them in power.  At last count, eight governments of the European Union have come and gone, suffering the wrath of our new god.  Other European governments barely hang on and scurry to curry favor with the bond market, proposing in effect to eat their own children and the futures of 99% of their people, if that’s what it takes to make high finance happy.  More will follow.  By the time this piece was published, who would be surprised if yet another government had bitten the dust. What about here in the U.S.A.?  That capitalism and democracy go together (like love and marriage in that old song) has been the imperial boast conveyed to the rest of the world by American banks and diplomats and presidents and Marines for a century — and more recently, by crony capitalist outfits like KBR and predator drones.  Today, at home and abroad that particular gospel seems a sorry piece of hypocrisy.  Capitalism has become a synonym for — to use an old word on its way back just in time — plutocracy, not democracy.  The Obama administration like the Bush administration before it, and the one before that, and the one before that, has bent its knee to “the Vatican of capitalism.”  Take Our Children, Please! Anticipating Swift, we are already eating our own children or, at least, the futures available to them .  My suggestion is to make the most of that reality.  When we assemble on January 16th, we should arrive as supplicants, bringing the deeds to our homes, if we still have them.  We could come dressed as credit-default swaps or collateralized debt obligations.  (Use your imagination!)  You’ll want to turn in your subprime mortgage documents.  And do you really need that mobile home or tent?  And certainly, you’ll want to offer up your children to Wall Street if they’re young enough to make a “delicious” and nourishing meal.  If a bit older, haul along that creaky swing-set from your backyard, or dilapidated blackboards and outmoded computer consoles from your child’s underfunded, disintegrating school.  Bring with you the paints, recorders, and stage props once used by art, music, and theater teachers, but made superfluous when their programs were cut by schools too poor to afford them.  If your children are older still, and waterlogged from the college loans that put them “underwater” before they even had their first jobs, why not donate those debts as securitized gifts to the Street?  Better yet: give back their college diplomas.  If you can, cart along vats of heating oil or coal bins to symbolize the winter fuel that you can no longer afford.  (Thank god for global warming !)  Declare yourself undocumented or at the very least “undeserving” (a prematurely retired and wonderfully apt word used by the 1% back in the late nineteenth century to describe those who apparently preferred starving to working).  Turn in your food stamps and unemployment insurance checks.  If you happen to have a job, return it or tithe a portion of your wages or pension for the cause.    Give back your votes; they do you no good, but might placate The Street.  If you’re not too shy, donate your medical records, x-rays, CAT scans and IV drips; you won’t need them anymore since the odds are you won’t be able to afford health care, and Wall Street can use them.  After all, who is more endlessly ingenious when it comes to turning misery into money?  Here’s a really big January 16th gesture if you’re up for it: securitize your body parts.  What, for example, is a leg- or ear- or brainpan-derivative really worth on the open market?  You don’t know, but Wall Street will.  And you can think of it as your contribution to solving the deficit dilemma, which keeps the 1% awake at night.  My poor imagination is hardly up to the task of imagining all the ways in which we might express our fealty to Wall Street’s financiers.  But we, the partisans of OWS, are if nothing else a remarkably creative bunch.  I’m confident that, when we get together on the 16th of January, the world will marvel at our inventiveness. An Archipelago of Isolation Chambers However “Swiftian” our mood, signage, and costumes, however much we retain the vital capacity to laugh at our own predicament and make fun of our tormentors, what I’m proposing is, in the end, serious business.  A massive “Collateralize Us” day is doable — and through its wit could embolden us and shame those in charge of the care and feeding of the 1%.  More important, it could put in the most graphic terms, where everyone could see it, a core indictment of a system in ruins and perhaps even hint at what might replace it. Why pick a single day and a single place to symbolically immolate our own children (and their children to come)?  Why not continue to occupy as many places as we can on all days?  We should!  However, the simple epiphany that OWS allowed millions to experience was its blunt discovery that Wall Street, the world of financial mis-engineers and predatory speculators, was the taproot of our multiple dilemmas.  For people around the globe, that street remains, at least symbolically, the site where our misbegotten Age of Austerity was born.  So it makes continuing sense to persevere in pressing that singular insight, in pursuing a determination to confront a dysfunctional system where it originates. So, too, local governments around the country have consistently used their police forces to cage, disperse, or otherwise fragment local occupations and may even have coordinated their police “occupations” with one another .  “Our streets” are ever less “ours” in any meaningful sense.  The geography of democracy is being transformed into an archipelago of isolation chambers.  But that won’t be the case if untold numbers assemble in New York on the 16th.  If every movement and organization that has had anything to do with OWS over these last months were to collaborate in mobilizing, even on the bitterest of January days, the streets will again be “ours.” Martin Luther King and Jubilee Day Then, of course, there is the resonant significance of the day itself.  Martin Luther King was a lawbreaker for justice.  So, too, were all those who defied “legitimate authority” alongside him. I’m not suggesting we break the law. I do suggest we exercise rights that are growing weak, and will grow weaker, if allowed to atrophy further.  And I do suggest as well that we, like King, become the midwives of new law.  If credit-default swaps and structured investment vehicles are legal, as they are, and if marching in the streets is becoming ever less so, as it is, then on January 16th we should begin to turn that kind of preposterous world upside down.  What was lawful shall become criminal and what was denied to the people shall be taken by them and made good law. When we gather on the 16th of January at the corner of Broad and Wall streets — don’t worry, you’ll find it! — in an act of unprecedented symbolic self-sacrifice, we might also make one modest request. With Martin Luther King in mind, let us propose that January 16th also become Jubilee Day.   Such days were a more or less regular part of the calendar in biblical times and long after.  It was the moment when common people were relieved of their crushing debts and the world was allowed to start over again.   Our own version of such a “day of forgiveness” would focus on all the debts with which the 1% have burdened so many working people.  On that day, we might resume a conversation about how to start the world anew.  It would undoubtedly be a conversation about all the vital resources that everyone depends on to enjoy life, be healthy, and have a future worthy of bequeathing to our children.  It would certainly be about how these must never again be allowed to congeal in the hands of an infinitesimal elite organized in a tiny number of private institutions indifferent to the commonweal and immune from censure. See you on the 16th.  Bring your children. Steve Fraser is Editor-at-Large of New Labor Forum, a TomDispatch regular , and co-founder of the American Empire Project (Metropolitan Books).  He is a labor and economic historian whose most recent book is Wall Street: America’s Dream Palace .  To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here .

Read the full article →

Middle-Class Jobs Disappearing In Workforce Shift: Report

November 21, 2011

America is increasingly becoming a place of high- and low-skill jobs, with less room available for a middle class. A new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that over the past 30 years, the U.S. workforce has shifted toward high-paying jobs that require a great deal of education — jobs in the legal, engineering or technology industries, for example — and toward low-paying jobs that require little schooling, like food preparation, maintenance and personal care. What haven’t fared so well are the industries in the middle, like sales, teaching, construction, repair, entertainment, transportation and business — the ones where a majority of Americans end up working. In 1980, these middle-level jobs accounted for 75 percent of the workforce. By 2009, that number had fallen to 68 percent . In the same span of time, low- and high-skill jobs had each grown as a percentage of the workforce. The New York Fed’s report highlights the growing gap between rich and poor in America, a wealth discrepancy that one economist recently described as approaching “Gilded Age” levels . It also offers evidence that the middle class, a large consumer base that once powered the country’s robust economy, is beginning to erode, as outsourcing, technological advances and social policy cause employment opportunities to evaporate. Poverty and long-term unemployment are increasingly afflicting middle-class households, and food insecurity is a growing concern in many suburbs . The nationwide move toward high- and low-paying jobs has been mirrored by a similar geographic shift: today, twice as many Americans live in either poor or affluent neighborhoods as did in 1970. And corporations are not unaware of the declining purchasing power of the middle class , with some companies now focusing on luxury items and bargain goods, and putting less emphasis on middle-market products. There’s no shortage of consumers looking to get a good price on household necessities, with a record number of Americans — 46 million , or possibly as many as 49 million — now living in poverty. Meanwhile, wealth has become ever more concentrated at the top. In October, a Congressional Budget Office report showed that the past three decades have seen the incomes of the very highest earners nearly triple , while wages have remained relatively stable for the vast majority of workers — the literal 99 percent on which the Occupy Wall Street movement has based its identity.

Read the full article →

No Increased Taxes: Colo. Measure Would Have Funded Schools

November 2, 2011

DENVER — Colorado voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected the nation’s only statewide tax increase on ballots this year – a proposal to raise income and sales taxes for five years to revive schools decimated by years of budget cuts. The measure would have sent an estimated $2.9 billion to K-12 schools and public colleges and universities, and the vote indicates Americans may not be willing to consider higher taxes in this down economy, despite deep budget cuts to high-priority services like schools. With 59 percent of the projected vote counted, Proposition 103 was trailing 65 percent to 35 percent. The measure would have raised individual and corporate tax rates from 4.63 percent to 5 percent, and Colorado’s sales and use tax rate from 2.9 percent to 3 percent. The rates would have been in effect from 2012 through 2016, with an estimated $2.9 billion in new revenue during that time going to K-12 schools and public colleges. Earlier this year, Colorado lawmakers cut K-12 schools’ funding by more than $200 million, to $2.8 billion. Still, most voters felt like Denver voter Mike Tiderman. “I understand the plight of schools and everything, but personally, I don’t want to pay more taxes right now,” said Tiderman, a 44-year-old customer service worker. Because Colorado’s state constitution forbids lawmakers to raise taxes, the higher tax rates were petitioned onto ballots thanks in great part to the efforts of Democratic Sen. Rollie Heath. Other Democrats, including Gov. John Hickenlooper, declined to get behind the idea. On the final day of voting in the mostly mail election, Hickenlooper released his budget proposal for next year, which calls for $89 million in cuts for public schools. Public colleges and universities would get $60 million less. Also, Denver voters rejected a measure to require employers to provide paid sick leave. The suggestion was pushed by a worker’s advocacy group, but it elicited strong opposition from business owners and even the mayor and Hickenlooper, a former restaurant owner. ___

Read the full article →

Regulators Ask Public Companies For First Time To Disclose Cyber Attacks

October 14, 2011

BOSTON/WASHINGTON (Jim Finkle and Sarah N. Lynch) – U.S. securities regulators formally asked public companies for the first time to disclose cyber attacks against them, following a rash of high-profile Internet crimes. The Securities and Exchange Commission issued guidelines on Thursday that laid out the kind of information companies should disclose, such as cyber events that could lead to financial losses. Senator John Rockefeller had asked the SEC to issue guidelines amid concern that it was becoming hard for investors to assess security risks if companies failed to mention data breaches in their public filings. “Intellectual property worth billions of dollars has been stolen by cyber criminals, and investors have been kept completely in the dark. This guidance changes everything,” Rockefeller said in a statement. “It will allow the market to evaluate companies in part based on their ability to keep their networks secure. We want an informed market and informed consumers, and this is how we do it,” Rockefeller said in a statement. There is a growing sense of urgency about cyber security following breaches at Google Inc, Lockheed Martin Corp, the Pentagon’s No. 1 supplier, Citigroup, the International Monetary Fund and others. Tom Kellermann, chief technology officer of security firm AirPatrol Corp, said that the SEC guidance tells companies to report cyber attacks and disclose steps to remediate problems. “They must also incorporate cyber events into their material risk reports,” said Kellermann, who has advised U.S. President Obama on cyber policy. The SEC gets into specifics, telling companies what type of data they might need to provide investors. “Examples of estimates that may be affected by cyber incidents include estimates of warranty liability, allowances for product returns, capitalized software costs, inventory, litigation, and deferred revenue,” it says. (The document can be accessed on the SEC’s website: www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/cfguidance-topic2.htm ) A report out earlier this month found that U.S. banks are losing ground in the battle to combat credit and debit card fraud because they balk at the expense of higher security. Globally, however, security is improving in the payment industry, according to data from The Nilson Report, a California trade publication. There is some hope of U.S. legislation to address the problem, although the House of Representatives appears more interested in tackling it piecemeal while the Senate is opting for a more far-reaching approach. Most of the concern has been focused on critical facilities like nuclear power, electricity, chemical and water treatment plants. (Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch in Washington and Jim Finkle in Boston; Editing by Gary Hill, Bob Burgdorfer and Carol Bishopric) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

American Earnings Now Same As During Nixon Era

September 15, 2011

The latest poverty and income figures came out this week, and boy are they disturbing. It’s not so much the headline figures, which have been well covered in the Times and elsewhere: 46 million Americans living under the poverty line in 2010, the highest number since the Commerce Department started collecting the figures back in 1959. That’s a horrible statistic. (Amy Davidson responded on Tuesday.) But it’s not too surprising since we’ve been through the deepest recession since the nineteen-thirties, and getting thrown out of work is a primary cause of poverty. (Plus, the population grows every year. If the proportion of people in poverty stays the same, you’d expect the absolute numbers to grow over time.)

Read the full article →

Trumka Blasts ‘Outsourcer’s Bill Of Rights’ Pushed By Republicans

September 12, 2011

WASHINGTON — AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka blasted a Republican bill designed to cripple the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), calling the legislation “an outsourcer’s bill of rights” and part of a larger attack on organized labor on Monday. The bill, introduced by Republicans earlier this summer , would forbid the NLRB from ordering a company to relocate or transfer any business even when that company violates labor law, effectively neutering the 77-year-old independent federal agency. The bill is aimed at scuttling a controversial complaint filed by the board’s acting general counsel against the Boeing Company this spring, although it’s part of conservatives’ larger attack on the board in the wake of several rulings seen as pro-union. “This is sweeping legislation that would gut [American labor law],” Trumka said of the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act , during a conference call with reporters. “This legislation won’t create jobs, while it’s clear the bill would change the rules to help a major campaign donor: Boeing.” Trumka warned that the legislation would take away the board’s ability to protect workers when companies illegally transfer or subcontract work. “Working people play by the rules,” he added. “So should business.” Republicans and business groups have been fiercely critical of the labor board during Obama’s presidency, accusing it of catering to labor unions in the decisions and rules it’s issued. The most contentious has been the complaint against Boeing, which the board has not ruled on yet. The aerospace manufacturer is accused of breaking the law by establishing a production line for its 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina. The board’s counsel alleged that the move was retaliation against Boeing’s unionized workers in Washington State for having gone on strike in the past. The complaint has put Boeing’s plans in South Carolina on hold for the time being. But Julius Getman, a labor law professor at the University of Texas, said the complaint was “not remarkable,” and that the bill drafted by Republicans in response amounts to an attack on workers. “The bill would essentially strip the board of its power to remedy unfair labor practices,” said Getman, who participated in Trumka’s call. “I have made a living being critical of the NLRB, but we absolutely need the NLRB if the rights of worker are to be protected.” Getman said he had drafted a letter in opposition to the Republican bill that more than 240 labor law experts have signed on to in a matter of days. He also said that “routine” decisions coming from the board had been “radicalized” by Republicans. When they introduced their bill in July, House Republicans accused the labor board of threatening American jobs by meddling in corporate decision-making. They also said their bill would ” provide employers with the certainty they need to invest in our economy and put Americans back to work, right here at home.” In a statement, a spokesman for bill co-sponsor John Kline (R-Minn.) said Trumka was spreading “misinformation.” “The committee has received testimony that describes the chilling effect the NLRB’s action against Boeing is already having upon employers, and manufacturers have reported that the complaint will negatively impact their hiring decisions,” spokesman Brian Newell said in an email. “The NLRB may have faithful friends in Big Labor, but House Republicans continue to stand by the nation’s workers and job-creators.” Patrick Bertucci, a unionized Boeing worker who puts wings on 747s in Washington State, told reporters Monday that he was “proud” of the NLRB for filing the complaint. “If the NLRB is not allowed to proceed with this case, we’ll all be a in lot of trouble,” Bertucci said.

Read the full article →

Barney Frank Blasts GOP ‘Arsonists’ For Blocking Obama Nominees

September 2, 2011

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) sharply criticized Senate Republicans Friday for blocking President Barack Obama’s nominees to head government agencies. “It is the legislative equivalent to an arsonist having set a fire and objecting to a building’s inhabitants using the fire exit,” Frank writes in an op-ed for The Washington Post . Frank presents the case of Richard Cordray, a former state attorney general who was nominated by Obama in July to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Senate Republicans vowed to block Cordray’s nomination — or that of any nominee — without changes designed to weaken the new agency. Cordray is just one in a long line of Obama nominees that Republicans have blocked in order to protect financial institutions, Frank writes. In June, Peter Diamond withdrew his nomination for Federal Reserve governor after failing to gain support from Senate Republicans. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, was just one GOP leader who criticized the nomination, saying Diamond — who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2010 — lacked monetary policy experience. Shelby also had a hand in ousting Joseph Smith, who was nominated by Obama to be the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. While Frank notes that the Republicans’ ability to object to the independence of the consumer agency is “entirely legitimate,” he does disagree with what he sees as a misuse of power. “Senate Republicans are not entitled to use the confirmation power as a bludgeon to get their way when they cannot do so through the normal legislative process,” Frank writes. As for Cordray, Frank expresses disappointment in the 44 Senate Republicans who have vowed they won’t consider him to head the CFPB. “We’re going to see an extraordinarily qualified administrator of an important consumer protection agency be trashed by the Senate Republican minority because their primary goal is to ensure that financial institutions are not troubled by what they may see as an excessive concern for consumer fairness,” Frank writes. Related video:

Read the full article →

Goldman Ordered To Hire Consultant To Review Mortgage Loans

September 1, 2011

NEW YORK (Lauren Tara LaCapra) – The U.S. Federal Reserve ordered Goldman Sachs Group Inc to hire a consultant to review practices of a former mortgage subsidiary on Thursday and said it plans to assess a monetary penalty for wrongful foreclosures. The Fed’s crackdown sent Goldman shares down 3.5 percent on Thursday, even as the bank announced that it had completed the sale of Litton Loan Servicing LP, the mortgage-servicing business at the heart of its foreclosure problems. Litton’s regulatory troubles stem largely from the practice of “robosigning,” in which bank employees signed foreclosure documents without reviewing case files as required by law. Many large banks, including Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo & Co and Citigroup Inc , have been targets of probes by state and federal regulators over the same issue, in the clean-up after a world financial crisis triggered in large part by bad mortgages in the United States and bonds backed by those loans. The Fed cited “a pattern of misconduct and negligence” at Litton in announcing its enforcement action against Goldman. An outside consultant will have to review all of Litton’s foreclosure activity in 2009 and 2010, to identify borrowers who suffered financial losses due to improper practices. Goldman will have to reimburse those customers and is also responsible for any fines that the Fed assesses after the review is complete. Separately, Goldman also reached a foreclosure-practices pact on Thursday with New York Financial Services Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky, helping clear the way for the bank to sell the business to Ocwen Financial Corp for $264 million. The bank agreed to forgive 25 percent of principal balances for struggling homeowners who are 60 days past due on mortgage payments, at a cost of $53 million. Goldman will also compensate some Litton home loan borrowers for wrongful foreclosures at an indeterminate cost. As part of the deal, Goldman, Litton and Ocwen all pledged to stop the robosigning practice, institute new staffing and training requirements for employees handling foreclosures and withdraw pending foreclosure actions that are based on faulty paperwork. They also agreed to compensate borrowers for wrongful foreclosures and strengthen protections for homeowners in relation to late payment fees and insurance costs. In return, Lawsky agreed to issue a “no objection” letter to the planned Litton-Ocwen transaction. [ID:nN06259001] But the agreement “does not preclude any future investigations of past practices or release any future claims or actions whatsoever,” the state agency said in a statement. Goldman shares closed down $4.06, or 3.5 percent, at $112.16 on the New York Stock Exchange. Ocwen Financial shares closed down 52 cents, or 3.8 percent, at $13.28. Goldman bought Litton in 2007 for $430 million, hoping to glean more information about the subprime mortgage market to help its trading business. But more recently, it has become a money-losing thorn in Goldman’s side. The bank began considering a sale of Litton late last year, as the mortgage market continued to suffer losses and state and federal regulators began investigating industry-wide foreclosure problems. Goldman wrote down the value of the business by $220 million in the first quarter. In a quarterly filing on Aug. 9, Goldman said Litton was facing probes by state attorneys general and banking regulators. A group of the nation’s largest banks are said to be working toward a settlement that could resolve some of those investigations and cost the industry billions of dollars. Ocwen is now the 12th largest mortgage-servicer in the United States after having acquired Litton, a relatively small player that ranked 23rd in the industry. (Additional reporting by Sakthi Prasad in Bangalore; Editing by Robert MacMillan, Steve Orlofsky, Gary Hill) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Many Big-Name Stocks Now Cheaper Than During Financial Crisis

August 31, 2011

NEW YORK (Rodrigo Campos) – One out of every 10 companies in the S&P 500 index — including stalwarts like Apple and JPMorgan Chase — is now cheaper than during the 2008-2009 market meltdown. Even as S&P 500 earnings soar past Wall Street estimates quarter after quarter, the lack of investor confidence has dropped the forward price-to-earnings ratio of at least 50 of the largest U.S. companies below their crisis lows, according to a screen of Thomson Reuters data. Investors are now willing to risk less cash for every $1 in earnings they expect to rake in for upcoming quarters than they were in 2008 or 2009. The companies in question are not exactly obscure. Besides Apple Inc and JPMorgan Chase & Co, others on the list include Microsoft Corp and Wal-Mart Stores Inc, illustrating the extent of investor pessimism. “Risk aversion is so great right now that high quality U.S. common stocks are on sale,” said Jack de Gan, chief investment officer at Harbor Advisory Corp in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Thomson Reuters data shows that 72 percent of the S&P 500 components beat earnings expectations in the second quarter. Estimates updated Tuesday show full-year earnings growth is seen at 14.1 percent for 2012 –just 0.2 percentage point less than the estimate on July 1, and still higher than the 13.6 percent estimate on April 1. By sector, technology, financials and consumer discretionary shares are trading at valuations not far from their 10-year lows. “It shows an incredible drop in overall confidence, not only in financial markets but in the political environment,” said Fred Dickson, chief market strategist at D.A. Davidson & Co in Lake Oswego, Oregon. “Knowing we are going into a political election year (investors) haven’t embraced what we would consider a decent, steady flow of good earnings.” Apple shares are up 350 percent since the start of 2009, while the company’s forward P/E ratio has fallen to 12.29, down from 15.52 in late November 2008. Apple is one of those companies whose share price is not keeping up with its rapid growth in earnings. Other companies on the list are not growing as rapidly. Wal-Mart has seen same-store sales fall every quarter for two years now. Hewlett-Packard Co, another Dow component on the list, is divesting its personal computer unit amid struggles, as well. But some of the names are stronger: The second-biggest U.S. bank by assets, JPMorgan, with its stock up more than 19 percent since the start of 2009, has seen its forward P/E decline to 6.63 from 9.44 in January 2008. “You have a company with a $200 billion market cap like some of these are, and to make that go up you need a lot of capital inflows,” said Harbor Advisory’s De Gan. “We’ve seen the P/E on some of these stocks basically decline for 10 years; at some point it becomes ridiculous.” (Reporting by Rodrigo Campos; Editing by Leslie Adler) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

We Have A Growth Crisis: Simon Johnson

August 15, 2011

The U.S.’s fiscal problem is not that the market questions the country’s ability to pay its debts. The willingness to pay was clearly proved by the outcome of the debt-ceiling debate, when even a majority of Tea Party adherents in the U.S. House of Representatives voted to lift the ceiling (though it would have passed without their votes). We most definitely do not have the kind of solvency crisis experienced by some emerging markets and now, for the first time, parts of Western Europe.

Read the full article →

Five Myths About The Dow

August 13, 2011

Charles Dowdevised the index in 1896 to give investors a snapshot of the performance of big manufacturing stocks (and of the U.S. economy) each day. The Dow still has an antique feel to it, but as a metaphor for the stock market, it remains unsurpassed: endlessly cited, parsed, followed, predicted — and misunderstood.

Read the full article →

S&P Turns Negative For The Year

August 2, 2011

NEW YORK (Edward Krudy) – The S&P 500 turned negative for the year on Tuesday as the wrangling over the U.S. debt ceiling faded and investors turned their attention to the stalling economy. The broad-based index fell for a seventh day and crashed through its key 200-day moving average in an ominous sign for markets. The seven days of losses mark the longest losing streak since October 2008. “It is going to be a long week,” said Jim Maguire Jr., a NYSE floor trader at E.H. Smith Jacobs. “The bid is not here in the market.” The selloff accelerated into the close as volume jumped well above average. The fall was broad-based, with four stocks falling for every one rising on the New York Stock Exchange. The index also broke through its 2-1/2 year uptrend line from its bear market low in March 2009. Thursday was its worst day in a year. For a graphic on the S&P 500 see, graphic r.reuters.com/dug92s Industrial and consumer discretionary shares, which are sensitive to signs of weakness in the economy, were among hardest hit. The S&P’s industrial and discretionary indexes .GSPI .GSPD fell more than 3 percent. Wall Street’s losses followed sharp falls in world equity markets as global manufacturing data this week indicated big industrial economies were on the verge of stalling. Investors seemed to find little to cheer after the U.S. Senate agreed to a deal to raise the debt ceiling because of the possibility it will not stave off a downgrade of the U.S. government’s triple-A rating. “Investors have made the shift from Washington to what I’m calling economic realities,” said Fred Dickson, chief market strategist at The Davidson Cos. in Lake Oswego, Oregon. Composite volume on the NYSE, the Amex and the Nasdaq reached 9.7 billion shares, well above this year’s daily average of around 7.5 billion. The Dow Jones industrial average .DJI dropped 265.87 points, or 2.19 percent, to 11,866.62. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index .SPX dropped 32.89 points, or 2.56 percent, to 1,254.05. The Nasdaq Composite Index .IXIC dropped 75.37 points, or 2.75 percent, to 2,669.24. Thursday marked the eighth down day for the Dow industrials, which remained in positive territory for the year. Shortly after the Senate vote, Fitch Ratings said the agreement to raise the U.S. borrowing capacity means the risk of a sovereign default is “extremely low” and commensurate with a AAA rating. But it warned Washington must reduce its debt or face a downgrade. A government report showed U.S. consumer spending fell unexpectedly in June for the first decline in nearly two years as incomes barely rose. On Monday a survey on U.S. factory activity suggested manufacturing stalled in July. The survey followed similarly weak reports from Asia and Europe and came after U.S. growth calculations were sharply cut for the first half of the year. The government’s key monthly jobs report for July is due on Friday and will be closely watched by investors. Big banks were also hit hard. Citigroup (C.N) fell 3.7 percent to $37.04, while Bank of America fell 3.3 percent to $9.49. The S&P’s financial index .GSPF has fallen more than 10 percent so far this year. Gold stocks were a bright spot. The precious metal surged over 2 percent to an all-time high as investors scrambled for a safe haven from sliding stock markets. The Arca Gold Bugs index .HUI, which measures the performance of 16 U.S.-traded gold miners, rose 1.8 percent, led by a 7 percent jump in Harmony Gold Mining (HMY.N). European debt problems returned to the forefront after French bank BNP Paribas SA (BNPP.PA) took a $768.3 million write-down linked to Greece’s debt woes. European shares .FTEU3 hit their lowest close in 11 months, with selling concentrated on Spain’s IBEX .IBEX, as well as Italy’s FTSE MIB .FTMIB, which hit a 27-month low. Drug company Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) reported a second-quarter profit that beat expectations by a penny and affirmed its full-year profit view. Shares of the Dow component fell 4.6 percent to $18.14. (Editing by Kenneth Barry) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Obama: Republicans Wasted ‘Precious Days’ On Boehner Debt Ceiling Plan

July 30, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP/The Huffington Post) — Claiming that the two parties aren’t that far apart, President Barack Obama is urging Democratic and Republican lawmakers to reach a deal quickly to keep the government from defaulting on payments to veterans, Social Security recipients and others. “Republicans in the House of Representatives just spent precious days trying to pass a plan that a majority of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate had already said they wouldn’t vote for,” he said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. Now, he said, “there is very little time” The Republican-controlled House on Friday passed a bill aimed at avoiding a debt default, voting 218-210 almost entirely along party lines. It pairs an immediate $900 billion increase in U.S. borrowing authority, needed for the government to keep paying all its bills, with $917 billion in federal spending cuts. But Democrats strongly oppose a provision that says Congress must approve a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution and send it to the states for ratification before any additional increases in borrowing authority are granted. In the Republican radio address, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl said it’s important for the country to avoid debt default, but said Democrats need to work more closely with Republicans. “Republicans have tried to work with Democrats to avoid this result and put our country on a better path, but we need them to work with us,” Kyl said. “Unfortunately, after weeks of negotiations, it became clear that Democrats in Washington did not view this crisis as an opportunity to rein in spending,” he said. “Instead, they saw it as an opportunity to impose huge tax increases on American families and small businesses.” Obama insists that borrowing authority extend through 2013, beyond next year’s presidential campaign. The Democratic-controlled Senate, with help from some Republicans, quickly rejected the House bill on Friday. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had an alternative measure to cut spending by $2.4 trillion and raise the debt limit by an equal amount, enough to meet Obama’s demand that there not be another vote on government borrowing next year. That defeat could set the stage for weekend negotiations on a compromise measure suitable to both houses of Congress. Obama said that compromise is needed by a Tuesday deadline – or else the government will begin running out of money. “Look, the parties are not that far apart here,” Obama said Saturday, claiming “rough agreement” between them on spending cuts and a process for overhauling the tax code and costly federal benefit programs. “There are plenty ways out of this mess. But there is very little time.” “We need to reach a compromise by Tuesday so that our country will have the ability to pay its bills on time, bills like Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits and contracts we’ve signed with thousands of American businesses,” Obama said. The president also offered praise for congressional Democrats and some Senate Republicans who “have been listening and have shown themselves willing to make compromises to solve this crisis.” He singled out House Republicans in calling on all lawmakers to show “the same kind of responsibility that the American people show every day” by paying their bills and keeping their houses in order. “The time for putting party first is over,” Obama said. “The time for compromise on behalf of the American people is now.

Read the full article →

Weak GDP Report Suggests Economic Recovery Will Be Painfully Slow

July 29, 2011

The American economy grew anemically during the spring, the government reported Friday, and prior growth was even slower than initially grasped, dealing a considerable setback to hopes for rapid improvement. Gross domestic product — the national output of goods and services — increased by only 1.3 percent between April and June 2011, the Commerce Department announced on Friday . Economists had expected to see growth of 1.8 percent. Worse, revisions to past numbers suggest that growth as far back as 2007 has been more sluggish than previously believed. GDP estimates for the first quarter of 2011 were revised downward to 0.4 percent growth, a sharp drop from the previous estimate of 1.9 percent. And GDP for 2007 through 2010, previously thought to have grown by an average of less than 0.1 percent each year during that period, was also revised downward, to show an average decrease of 0.3 percent per year. “It’s not a recession,” said Josh Bivens, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, in an interview with The Huffington Post. “It doesn’t panic people the same way. But it is a disaster if you’re really concerned about joblessness.” The numbers arrive amidst an already discouraging economic climate. At the beginning of July, a report from the Labor Department showed weak job growth and rising unemployment for the third month in a row. Consumer confidence has fallen to a two-year low , according to a closely-watched survey from the University of Michigan. And in Washington, a Congressional standoff over the U.S. Treasury’s ability to borrow money has led to widespread fears of market shocks, missed government payouts, and a national credit downgrade. Given these circumstances, Friday’s listless GDP numbers are particularly unwelcome. They don’t necessarily suggest that the U.S. will backslide into another recession, says Bivens, but they don’t point to rosy days ahead either. “I think we could bounce along for a couple of years at this really miserably slow growth rate,” Bivens told HuffPost. “So we’d never technically enter a recession, but we would still have high and maybe even rising unemployment.” Last month, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke predicted that the recovery would accelerate in the second half of 2011 , noting that high oil prices and disruptions from the natural disasters in Japan have likely played a role in suppressing growth this year. But Lakshman Achuthan, co-founder and chief operations officer at the Economic Cycle Research Institute, told The Huffington Post that the economy is likely to remain underwhelming for some time. “Today, I think if you turn on the TV, they might blame everything on the debt debates in Washington,” said Achuthan. “But the slowdown started a long time ago. It didn’t start today and it’s not going to end tomorrow… The slowing is going to continue through the end of year, at least, and that includes the slowing in jobs.” Consumer spending remained almost flat for the second quarter, according to Friday’s report, rising only 0.1 percent. “Consumers didn’t get anything. There was no growth in what they were buying,” said Achuthan. “Probably because they were just buying gas and food.” Not every indicator is trending downward, however. Friday’s report indicated that personal income increased 4.2 percent in the second quarter of 2011, after rising 8.3 percent in the first. Home prices are creeping up after a setback in February, according to data from the Census Bureau and the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller index . And industrial production saw an uptick in June after two months of decline, according to the Federal Reserve . Still, two years after the official end of the recession, the economy is far from where anyone would like it to be. “If you look at the level of GDP today, it turns out with the revisions, it’s still lower than it was before the recession hit,” Bivens told The Huffington Post. “So basically we were a richer country in the fourth quarter of 2007 than we are today, with these revisions. We have not even called back all of these income losses that we saw during the Great Recession.” In April, a Gallup poll found that 55 percent of Americans believed the U.S. was in a recession or a depression — 10 percent more than in February 2008, when a recession was actually underway. Practically speaking, though, the recovery feels like a recession to many Americans. A separate Gallup survey found that about five million fewer people have access to basic necessities –including food, shelter and health care — than did in October 2008, when the recession had been going on for several months. In spite of Friday’s disappointing numbers — and all the disappointing numbers before them — a recovery is happening, said Bivens. “We really have been growing since the middle of 2009, we’ve just been growing far too slowly,” he told HuffPost. “The growth is real. It’s just clearly inadequate.”

Read the full article →

Gernot Wagner: $75,000 Buys Happiness, Twice as Much Buys More

July 20, 2011

“Money doesn’t buy happiness.” Ask anyone who had been slaving away on his desk late last night. Happiness seems to stop going up at  $75,000 . Make more and you are no better off. This is only a third of the story. Double my income today and I’ll tell you tomorrow that I am happier for it — another piece of conventional wisdom. I might get used to my increased riches eventually, but for now let me enjoy the extra cash. There’s another, even more profound complication lurking in the background: Ask me how I evaluate my life overall, and the threshold goes away altogether. More money suddenly does buy more happiness , even for a household raking in more than $75,000 per year. $75,000 itself, of course, is already high. Two thirds of American households make less. Half make less than $50,000. And that’s Americans. Most of the world has a ways to go to hit any kind of plateau. Even if we moved from our obsession with money to maximizing “happiness,” we’ll be accumulating quite a bit more stuff for a while.

Read the full article →

Obama Takes His Debt Ceiling Case To The American People

July 16, 2011

WASHINGTON — Racing the debt clock, Congress is working on dual tracks while President Barack Obama appeals to the public in hopes of influencing a deal that talks have failed to produce so far. “We have to ask everyone to play their part because we are all part of the same country,” Obama said Saturday, pushing a combination of spending cuts and tax increases that has met stiff resistance from Republicans. “We are all in this together.” In his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said the wealthiest must “pay their fair share.” He invoked budget deals negotiated by GOP President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill – which included a payroll tax increase – and Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich. “You sent us to Washington to do the tough things, the right things,” he said. “Not just for some of us, but for all of us.” As a critical Aug. 2 deadline approached, the chances that Obama would get $4 trillion or even $2 trillion in deficit reduction on terms he preferred were quickly fading as Congress moved to take control of the debate. At a news conference Friday, Obama opened the door to a smaller package of deficit reductions without revenue increases. Obama’s communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, said Saturday the president, Vice President Joe Biden and White House aides were discussing “various options” with congressional leaders and House and Senate aides from both parties. The White House held out the possibility of arranging a meeting with the leaders on Sunday. House Republicans prepared to vote this coming week on allowing an increase in the government’s borrowing limit through 2012 as long as Congress approved a balanced-budget constitutional amendment, which is highly unlikely. In the Senate, the Republican and Democratic leaders worked on a bipartisan plan that would allow Obama to raise the debt limit without a prior vote by lawmakers. The talks focused on how to address long-term deficit reduction in the proposal in hopes of satisfying House Republicans. A weekend deadline that the president gave congressional leaders to choose one of three deficit reduction options became a moot point after House and Senate leaders made it clear to the White House on Friday that they were moving ahead with their own plans. In the Republicans’ address Saturday, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah argued for passage of a balanced-budget amendment. He blamed Democrats for failing to embrace adequate budget cuts and said “the solution to a spending crisis is not tax increases.” An amendment that requires a balanced budget, he said, “would put us on a path to fiscal health and would prevent this White House or any future White House from forcing more debt on the American people.” The government said Friday it was using its last stopgap measure to avoid exceeding the current $14.3 trillion debt limit. Administration officials, economists and the financial markets have warned that missing the Aug. 2 deadline and precipitating a government default would send convulsions through an already weakened economy. Obama had held five straight days of meeting with congressional leaders at the White House, but none of the three options he proposed – deficit cuts of $4 trillion, $2 trillion or $1.5 trillion over 10 years – were unlocking enough support to increase the debt ceiling by the $2.4 trillion Obama wants to make it last beyond the 2012 elections. Essentially declaring those discussions over, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Friday: “”Now the debate will move from a room in the White House to the House and Senate floors.” By day’s end, House Speaker John Boehner held at least two top-level meetings, one with White House Chief of Sta ff Bill Daley and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and the other with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. In search of a deal, Obama has used a combination of private meetings with congressional leaders and high visibility press conferences, radio addresses and public statements in an effort to win the public to his side. His pitch is also aimed at independent voters, to whom he is presenting himself as a willing compromiser. In a White House video distributed Saturday by Obama senior adviser David Plouffe to supporters, Obama is shown praising the virtue of compromise to a group of Democratic, Republican and independent students. He noted that President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation permitted slavery in border states loyal to the Union, in an attempt to hold the nation together. “Here you’ve got a wartime president whose making a compromise around probably the greatest moral issue that the country ever faced because he understood that `right now, my job is to win the war and to maintain the union,’” Obama said. “Can you imagine how the (liberal news outlet) Huffington Post would have reported on that? It would have been blistering. Think about it, `Lincoln sells out slaves.’” He told the students: “The nature of our democracy and the nature of our politics is to marry principle to a political process that means you don’t get 100 percent of what you want.” __ Online: Obama address: www.whitehouse.gov GOP address: www.youtube.com/gopweeklyaddress

Read the full article →

Lydia Fisher: Learning Basic Budgeting at Age 7, Wicker Armor and Clarions

July 14, 2011

I think I learned basic budgeting, and finance, at age 7. On a weekly basis, I received a $.25 allowance (back in the mid-sixties), so long as my chores were done, homework completed. At an impressionable age, I learned “ins” need to equal “outs.” On Saturday mornings, I’d accompany my father to the local Savings and Loan. It was a treat that I looked forward to. The routine went like this. More often than not, I donned an A-line skirt and a white crisp cotton blouse, sleeves to the elbow with a ruffle. I had but one dress-up outfit for each season. To match the sleeves, the quintessential white anklets with lace trim. Like a dame, with a black patent purse slung over my arm to match my Mary Jane shoes, I was ready to meet the teller; all gussied up! In a swirl of grown-ups, I’d walk up confidently to the teller window, albeit a bit dizzy from the “merry-go-round” with the bank entry revolving doors. My head barely reached the teller counter, but I’d slip my coins forward on my tippy toes if need be, followed by handing over my passbook. I’d wait for the teller to mark the deposit into my passbook, checking to make sure it was correct — loving the fact that month to month the number grew. Eventually, the deposits added up to pay for part of my MBA school tuition. I remember thinking along the following lines. If I were to buy five $.05 dip-top ice cream cones a week from Tastee-Freeze , no money left. I’d have to borrow from my brother or sisters against my future. I loved those cones so much so, I dreamed about them. Yet, I recall the words, “don’t let money burn a hole in your pocket, save a little even if just a nickel.” I listened. The US was “debt-free,” but once, back in 1835 under Andrew Jackson. So Jackson decided to pay off the debt. To do that, he took advantage of a huge real-estate bubble that was raging in the Western U.S. The federal government owned a lot of Western land — and Jackson started selling it off. He was also ruthless on the budget. He blocked every spending bill he could. Fast forward to today. The world’s awash in debt — $40 trillion in global public debt. What’s more, the interconnectedness of the global financial system, the concentration of banking, places the domino-like contagion on the front stoop of just about any nation, any institution, any individual. Easy to get lost in the detail surrounding the worldwide debt crisis, but what’s it saying, what’s to be learned? Seems to me, when taking on debt, two questions matter. First, can the debt be serviced based on realistic assumptions — as in analyzing debt service under best, middle-of-the-road, and worst-case scenarios. Second, is the ratio of debt to asset value reasonable — as in best, middle-of-the-road and worst-case scenarios. How was basic credit analysis so overlooked, or maybe restraint diminished, by sovereign governments, banks, institutions, individuals? Is it a Shakespearean-like pursuit of returns, wants, profit and power? Can we assume that economies could grow to keep up with debt? Here’s the other part of the story. Nowadays, we have fancy tools at our disposal with capabilities that may either bring out the best or the worst in human behavior, with potentially dire or yet unimagined consequences. Take the phony mortgage securities (in the trillions) as one example. Don’t know how many of you caught a recent headline about groups of hackers trying to outdo one another in cyberspace. Technological know-how reminds me of when the Greeks developed bronze weaponry. They went up against armies who still wore wicker armor. Those armies were decimated. Potent technology and the facility it brings, requires updated tactics, ethics. It’s not technology per se, it’s who uses it and how. If the financial crisis teaches us anything, maybe it’s this — the need to stay informed, updated, active and adaptive, yet undistracted (in a world of ever-increasing distraction and technological innovation). There’s something to vigilance, to weaving together what is going on around us. Look what happened — one of the most heart-wrenching financial “decimations” in our nation’s history, and, at taxpayer expense. The cash flow engine now needed to service a mammoth $14.3 trillion national debt remains the “wild card” (with joblessness spawned by the crisis, corporate cost-cutting, technological automation…). As you well know, the consumer accounts for some 70% of the US $14 trillion or so economy. How long can we resort to debt (for every $1.00 we spend, we borrow $.40) to keep the economy afloat? And, can we build a sustainable economic revenue bedrock in time to support indebtedness of this magnitude? Are we at a point where the staggering interest payments alone on US national debt may keep replicating the debt? Do we hear the sound of the clarions? Is this an opportunity, to re-evaluate what is real, what is unreal, as the headlines unfold. What is truly meaningful, and what is meaningful in our own individual and family lives? What’s the difference between wants and needs? Do wants merit indebtedness? Do we act from within ourselves to shape our future or will it be imposed upon us? The unscrupulous exist, sharpening their “bronze weaponry,” eager to exploit wants.

Read the full article →

House Approves Major Overhaul Of U.S. Patent System

June 24, 2011

WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday voted to rewrite 60-year-old patent law to give inventors a better shot of obtaining patents in a timely manner and bringing the U.S. patent system in line with those of other industrialized nations. The legislation also takes steps to help the underfunded U.S. Patent and Trademark Office deal with a backlog that forces inventors to wait three years to get a decision on patent applications and has swamped the agency with some 1.2 million pending applications. The vote was 304-117, closer than the 95-5 vote by which a similar bill cleared the Senate in March. The two chambers still have to reconcile differences, but the bill has the advantage of being supported by the White House, major business groups, and leaders from both parties who have hailed it as a major jobs-creating measure. “This legislation modernizes our patent system to help create private-sector jobs and keep America on the leading edge of innovation,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. Before getting to a final vote, House supporters had to overcome challenges from opponents who charged that the legislation violated the Constitution and would make it more difficult for the small-scale inventor to prevail in disputes with large corporations. There was also strong opposition to a provision that allows financial institutions to challenge patents issued on business methods, such as ways to process checks. The opponents said the provision amounted to a bailout for banks, but Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the Judiciary intellectual property subcommittee said business method patents, a fairly recent phenomenon, were “a fundamental flaw in the system that is costing consumers millions each year.” An amendment to remove the section concerning the business method patents was defeated 262-158. The most significant change brought about by the bill would put the United States under the same first-inventor-to-file system for patent applications used by Europe and Japan. Currently the country operates on a first-to-invent system that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said is “outdated and dragged down by frivolous lawsuits and uncertainty regarding patent ownership.” A chief opponent of the change, former Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said it would “permit the Patent and Trademark Office to award a patent to the first person who can win a race to the patent office regardless of who is the actual inventor.” But Smith said that for a $110 fee an inventor can file a provisional application that gives him a year to prepare for his formal application. He said it can cost $5 million for legitimate inventors to defend themselves against unwarranted lawsuits. The Senate and House will also have to work out differences on another major element of the bill, how to fund the patent office. The Senate ensures that the PTO can keep all the user fees it collects. Since 1992, the office has lost nearly $1 billion because it gets less from Congress than the fees it collects, which go to the general Treasury. This is a major factor in the backlog in processing applications. The House, however, acceded to Appropriations and Budget committee demands that Congress retain control over the PTO’s purse strings. As a compromise it was agreed to set up a reserve fund for fees collected that exceed what Congress allots to the PTO in a given year. An attempt to reverse this decision was defeated 283-140. The chief Senate sponsor of the bill, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and the White House said they continued to support the bill despite the House change in the office’s revenue stream. Among supporters of the legislation – some with specific concerns – are IBM; the U.S. Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, which represents major manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies; and the Coalition for Patent Fairness, which represents Apple, Dell, Google and other high-tech companies. Opposition came mainly from groups representing independent inventors, small businesses and academics. The legislation sets up a process for third parties to submit information regarding a patent application and establishes a new administrative framework for post-grant reviews that allows disputes involving patent quality and scope to be settled, ideally without lawsuits.

Read the full article →

Controversial Plan Criticized As Draconian Attempt To Balance New Jersey Budget

June 11, 2011

TRENTON, N.J. — As states across the country look for ways to trim billions off their spending on Medicaid, New Jersey is garnering particular attention for a proposal that opponents characterize as an unprecedented and draconian attempt to balance the state’s precarious budget on the backs of society’s most vulnerable populations. The debates taking place in statehouses, clinics and living rooms crystalize the unfortunate truth about economic recessions: Citizens rely most on public services just when the government has the least money to spend on those services. In New Jersey’s case, changes would mean a parent of two earning more than $103 per week would be ineligible. As a joint federal-state venture, Medicaid changes provide endless opportunities for political collision. New Jersey’s proposal to cut more than half a billion dollars occupies the delicate intersection between the Republican governor’s budget, the Democratic Legislature’s priorities, President Barack Obama’s health care reforms and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposed entitlement overhauls. The 46-year-old Medicaid program provides government-funded health care to low-income people at risk due to disability, age, chronic illness or other circumstances. It was expanded in 1997 to cover more individuals through the Children’s Health Insurance Program, known in New Jersey as NJ FamilyCare. States have substantial flexibility to determine the “who,” “what” and “how” of services offered. At issue in New Jersey is a $540 million cut to state Medicaid funding that Gov. Chris Christie proposed for next year’s budget. About $240 million comes from specific program cuts, such as $140 million dropped from nursing home coverage. “If the cuts go through, it could mean more dangerous falls, not getting my medicine,” said Maureen Liberatore, 77, whose care in a Cinnaminson, N.J. nursing home is Medicaid-funded. Christie hopes to save $300 million through a “comprehensive Medicaid waiver.” States submit waivers to the federal government requesting permission to restructure their program outside the core parameters for what they must cover. A provision of the health care changes Obama championed prevents states from turning away previously eligible residents without such a waiver. It’s a stop-gap measure until 2014, when another part of health care reform will expand Medicaid to anyone earning less than 133 percent of the poverty level. “The state is effectively telling these families to wait until 2014 to get coverage again,” U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said Friday. “Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a waiver for getting cancer.” About 1 million of New Jersey’s nearly 9 million residents are enrolled in Medicaid or NJ FamilyCare. Even with the proposed cuts, the state will spend almost $5 billion to fund the programs in 2012. The federal government chips in about an equal amount. “We must do these things, not only to fill the hole created by the loss of over a billion dollars of federal stimulus money since 2010, but because it is the right thing to do,” Christie said in his budget address. “Medicaid’s growth is out of control.” New Jersey’s waiver, which it plans to submit June 30, would drop the income cap for new adult enrollees to about 25 percent of the poverty level. Although current enrollees can stay enrolled, the state estimates 23,000 parents will be denied coverage next year. That’s in addition to 70,000 turned away due to separate 2011 reduction. “It is the worst health policy decision I’ve seen in my 13 years in the Senate,” said state Sen. Joseph Vitale, while his Democratic colleague in the Assembly, Gordon Johnson, made it personal: “No one but this anti-working class governor would propose making it difficult for the poorest of the poor to obtain health care coverage,” Johnson said. Responding to pointed questions from lawmakers about why no detailed breakdown of the savings had been presented, the Department of Human Services on Friday released its estimates. The state projects eligibility cuts will save $17 million to $32 million, while moving patients from fee-for-service plans into managed-care will save up to $40 million. Officials are also counting on $200 million in increased federal funding. With state revenues falling across the country, almost every governor is seeking to rein in Medicaid costs. But most have focused on dropping services from the benefits package, reducing reimbursement rates or expanding managed-care. Only New Jersey and Arizona have gone as far in turning patients away. In Arizona, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed a law dropping hundreds of thousands from the Medicaid rolls. That law is being challenged in court. “They are in a very unique situation because their entire Medicaid program operates under a waiver,” said Samantha Artiga, health analyst for the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. “Their waiver is scheduled to expire, so the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services essentially said they couldn’t force Arizona to renew their waiver.” Governors seeking increased state control have looked to Rhode Island, where federal officials approved a 2009 comprehensive waiver that essentially converts the program into a block grant. Rhode Island promised the federal government that costs won’t exceed $12 billion over five years in exchange for authority to make its own coverage decisions. But critics are leery the move is actually saving Rhode Island money. That mirrors concerns in New Jersey that the state is building estimates of projected savings into the budget. And since federal funds match state funds, any cut to state Medicaid spending means fewer federal dollars. The idea to convert Medicaid into block grants, where states get a set amount of federal dollars to do with as they wish, echoes Rep. Ryan’s fiscal austerity budget, which sent shockwaves through Washington. His budget attempts to tackle the U.S. deficit through steep cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicaid and Medicare. Ryan, R-Wis., succeeded in moving his budget through the GOP-controlled House, but it is unlikely to pass the Senate and would face a certain presidential veto. Both of New Jersey’s U.S. senators signed a letter Tuesday commending Obama for opposing Medicaid cuts. U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, a Democrat, serves in the House Budget Committee that Ryan chairs. In an act of opposition to both federal and state Medicaid cuts, he visited a Medicaid-funded adolescent group home Wednesday in his north Jersey district. In a two-story Clifton home, a wall tapestry lists the rules of the house: “Always be honest. Look after each other. Forgive and forget.” On the bookshelf, SAT preparation books sit next to a portrait of the married couple who live fulltime with three teenage girls in their foster care. “When you have those demonic cuts, they are bound to lead to a lot of hurt and pain,” Pascrell said. “These people’s lives are worth a lot.” ___ Associated Press writer Beth DeFalco contributed to this report. ___ Reach Josh Lederman at http://www.twitter.com/joshledermanAP

Read the full article →

The Summer Gas Squeeze

May 28, 2011

NEW YORK — There’s less money this summer for hotel rooms, surfboards and bathing suits. It’s all going into the gas tank. High prices at the pump are putting a squeeze on the family budget as the traditional summer driving season begins. For every $10 the typical household earns before taxes, almost a full dollar now goes toward gas, a 40 percent bigger bite than normal. Households spent an average of $369 on gas last month. In April 2009, they spent just $201. Families now spend more filling up than they spend on cars, clothes or recreation. Last year, they spent less on gasoline than each of those things. Jeffrey Wayman of Cape Charles, Va., spent Friday riding his motorcycle to North Carolina’s Outer Banks, a day trip with his wife. They decided to eat snacks in a gas station parking lot rather than buy lunch because rising fuel prices have eaten so much into their budget over the past year that they can’t ride as frequently as they would like. “We used to do it a lot more, but not as much now,” he said. “You have to cut back when you have a $480 gas bill a month.” Alex Martinez, a senior at Arcadia High School outside Los Angeles, said his family’s trips to San Francisco, which they usually take once or more a year, are on hold. As he stopped at a gas station to put $5 of fuel in his car – not much more than a gallon – he said the high prices are crimping social life for him and his friends. “We’re always worrying, `How are we going to get home. We’ve got less than half a gallon left,’” Martinez said. “We definitely can’t go out as much, and we can’t go as far.” As Memorial Day weekend opens, the nationwide average for a gallon of unleaded is $3.81. Though prices have drifted lower in recent days, analysts expect average price for 2011 to come in higher than the previous record, $3.25 in 2008. A year ago, gas cost $2.76. The squeeze is happening at a time when most people aren’t getting raises, even as the economy recovers. “These increases are not something consumers can shrug off,” says James Hamilton, an economics professor at the University of California, San Diego, who studies gas prices. “It’s a key part of the family budget.” The ramifications are far-reaching for an economy still struggling to gain momentum two years into a recovery. Economists say the gas squeeze makes people feel poorer than they actually are. They’re showing it by limiting spending far beyond the gas station. Wal-Mart recently blamed high gas prices for an eighth straight quarter of lower sales in the U.S. Target said gas prices were hurting sales of clothes. Every 50-cent jump in the cost of gasoline takes $70 billion out of the U.S. economy over the course of a year, Hamilton says. That’s about one half of one percent of gross domestic product. The Commerce Department reported Friday that consumer spending rose just 0.1 percent in April, excluding the extra money spent on more expensive gas and food, while wages stayed flat for the second straight month. Mike Nason, a marketing consultant from Laguna Niguel, Calif., says he’s clipping coupons to save money for gas and cutting back wherever else he can. His daughter Chandler, 17, recently settled for a prom dress that cost $170 instead of asking her parents to spend $400 for another that caught her eye. “In prior years we would have spent more money on the dress, but money has become a big object,” he says. The tourism industry is bracing for an uncertain summer. AAA predicts the typical family will spend $692 on its vacation, down 14 percent from $809 last year. Many of those surveyed said they are planning shorter trips and expect to pinch pennies when they arrive. AAA estimates 34.9 million Americans will travel 50 miles or more from home this weekend, an increase of about 100,000 from last year. But they will have to do more complicated math to make the summer budget work. The median household income in the U.S. before taxes is just below $50,000, or about $4,150 per month. The $369 that families spent last month on gas represented 8.9 percent of monthly household income, according to an analysis by Fred Rozell, retail pricing director at Oil Price Information Service. Since 2000, the average is about 5.7 percent. For the year, the figure is 7.9 percent. Only twice before have Americans spent this much of their income on gas. In 1981, after the last oil crisis, Americans spent 8.8 percent of household income on gas. In July 2008, when oil price spiked, they spent 10.2 percent. Average hourly earnings, meanwhile, have risen just 1.9 percent in the past year. That’s only just enough to keep up with inflation. The good news is that analysts expect gas to fall to $3.50 a gallon in the coming weeks. In order for household gasoline expenses to return to their historical place in the family budget for the year, gas prices would have to fall by about half and stay that way for the rest of the year. Demand for gasoline has fallen for eight straight weeks as drivers try to cut back, but higher prices can’t keep drivers parked for long. Even with high prices this year, the government expects gasoline demand to grow slightly for the year. “Drivers try to do what they can, but they have to go almost all the places they go,” says David Greene, a researcher at the Center of Transportation Analysis at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and manager of the Department of Energy website fueleconomy.gov. “There’s no magic gizmo that will drastically change someone’s gasoline use.” Mike Siroub clutched his heart as he described the experience of filling up lately. He owns a Union Oil gas station in Arcadia, Calif., but one of his cars is also a 1975 Oldsmobile. “Think about it,” he said. “If you’ve got a car with a 30-gallon tank and gas is $4 a gallon and you fill it up, you’re out $120.” He says high gas prices will keep him home this weekend. And he runs a gas station for a living. As he greeted a steady stream of customers at his station, he laughed and said, “I have to pay for gas just like everyone else.” ___ Associated Press writers John Rogers in Los Angeles and Brock Vergakis in Norfolk, Va., contributed to this story. Jonathan Fahey can be reached at . http://www.facebook.com/Fahey.Jonathan

Read the full article →

John Levin: Four Ways to Cut the Price of Oil and Keep the Savings in the U.S.

May 24, 2011

NEW YORK — With all the partisan debate over spending cuts in the U.S., energy policy seems to be pretty far down on everyone’s agenda. That’s a shame because there is probably no other single area that could have a bigger impact on the country’s finances. Think of it this way: Every 10 percent reduction in the price of oil represents a $36 billion tax cut for America. The United States imports 10 million barrels of oil a day. At a price of $100 per barrel that’s $365 billion a year that the country is being “taxed” by foreign suppliers. It is an urgent national priority to reduce this cost both in financial terms and for national security. And, no, the recent drop in oil prices and promised relief at the gas pump projected for the summer doesn’t change a thing. If anything, it should inspire the U.S. to act more aggressively to drive prices down further. Fortunately, the means are at hand to make a meaningful impact on this cost and keep the savings home. Here four ways it can happen. Hold Mideast allies to their word — Some of the current cost may be temporary and described as a risk premium for uncertainties in the Middle East, particularly Libya. Libyan production is 1.9 million barrels per day of high quality oil, which is roughly 2.5 percent of world output of 84 million barrels a day. Eventually there is every reasonable expectation that Libyan production will come back, as Col. Qaddafi will be ousted and the oil will be quickly produced (Qatar has already indicated that they would help with the transshipment) or he will somehow survive or some kind of compromise be reached, in which case Iran or some other country will undoubtedly facilitate the sale of the oil. In the meantime, Saudi Arabia has indicated that it would increase production by 3.5 million barrels a day and Kuwait has indicated they would increase production by 500,000 barrels per day to offset any shortfall from Libyan production. It is unclear whether such added supply has come on the market but it is clear that one way or the other, adequate supply and lower prices are at hand if Saudi Arabia and Kuwait keep their word. We should put the pressure on to see they do and that the markets acknowledge it. Start leveraging natural gas to electrify vehicles — The United States can take its massive natural gas reserves and supply them to our utilities, which are underutilized at night, to produce electric power to drive electric and hybrid vehicles. This is a multi-year program that will not be achieved instantaneously, but starting it can materially affect the current expectations and behavior of those who own oil. Historically those expectations have been for ever-increasing prices because of worldwide demand and an increased number of autos. But should those expectations be changed sellers would tend to sell. Cheating by OPEC members would tend to increase and it would be extremely difficult for the cartel to enforce its quotas. A significant failure of United States policies over the last 40 years since the first OPEC embargo has been inaction on our part to reduce demand and as a consequence expectations. There are major side benefits to this approach. We would create a major worldwide auto industry with advanced technology and real jobs for our labor force. Much of this technology and know-how could be exported for the benefit of our companies and our country. Of course much of the natural gas would come from shale and we must carefully identify what risks that poses to the water supply and to the environment. Increase gasoline taxes –There is little doubt a gas tax would lower demand. Any regressive aspect could be moderated by either income tax benefits or rebates to the lowest income segment of the population. Tax benefits to businesses that reduce their gasoline consumption could help ease the burden on commercial users. Stop throwing good money after bad — Counterproductive policy such as those involving ethanol should be abandoned. Not only do these approaches not reduce the demand for imported oil but they raise the price of corn and other food imports. The consequence of the latter plus the price of oil is an income squeeze on the lowest income parts of not just the United States but the world. The subsidies would be better spent on alternative energy sources like wind and solar that could cut demand for oil. The fact that the U.S. is more obsessed with cutting taxes that it pays to itself than with cutting the “taxes” it pays to OPEC is a situation that must be corrected. Energy policies that address supply and demand for gasoline are the answer.

Read the full article →

Art Levine: High Noon: Tuesday Protests Take on "Fully Loaded" Chairman, GOP-Style Dems Over DC Cuts to Poor

May 24, 2011

The scandal-plagued chairman of the DC Council, Kwame Brown, best known for asking city taxpayers to pay for a “fully loaded” Lincoln Navigator worth $2,000 a month, is joining with other GOP-style Democrats to slash city services for the poor. At the same time, they’re opposing the mayor’s proposal to raise $35 million in added taxes from Washington’s richest residents — and, amazingly, the council is moving to give away $19 million in revenue through repealing some taxes for the rich altogether. With the vote scheduled Wednesday, The Washington Examiner reports that a backroom deal was apparently struck Monday evening with Brown when Marion Barry, the former crack-smoking mayor and still a councilman, agreed to reverse his support for tax increases on the rich in exchange for property tax abatements for some churches in his district. The pending budget deal could still cut over $100 million from critical services for the poor, disabled and homeless from the social services budget, roughly two-thirds of all proposed cuts. The safety-net is already so tattered that homeless mothers with infants in tow have been given bus fare to ride the buses all night rather than shelter. As a result , Save Our Safety Net , a group leading a loose coalition of progressive safety-net advocacy organizations, called for protests Tuesday at noon at DC’s City Hall, the Wilson Building. And in the day before the event, they unleashed a series of last-minute videos targeting Kwame Brown, most on the City Council and an otherwise liberal council member, Mary Cheh, for opposing raising taxes on the rich and risking the well-being of the city’s neediest. What wasn’t mentioned publicly is that these same city council members also pay themselves and their staff the most lavish salaries and expenses in the country when measured on a per-seat or per-taxpayer basis: $1.5 million per council seat. The biggest target remains Kwame Brown and his lavish lifestyle contrasted with the poor children, disabled and homeless who could be denied services. The latest video ends with an SUV heading for a crash and the tag line: “Don’t let Kwame run over our most important public services.” Brown has offered what critics see as vague promises to restore $25 million in proposed cuts, but as the S.O.S. group pointed out, following protests last week : After our Wednesday action, we had 7 confirmed Council votes in support of the Mayor’s income tax proposal, enough to pass it. But yesterday we got word that Marion Barry (Ward 8) and Tommy Wells (Ward 6) have decided they no longer support the Mayor’s proposed income tax! We have also heard that Kwame Brown is proposing $25 million in restorations. That is certainly a step in the right direction, but it is not nearly enough. Safety net services are still underfunded by $32 million. By getting rid of the income tax proposal, Chairman Brown, Barry, Wells and other Councilmembers would take away $19 million in resources that could be used to restore funding to critical services. Even though at least 85% of the city residents in a recent poll back raising taxes to preserve social services, most city council members reject that stance and instead are supporting other accounting schemes and alternative revenue measures, including some that the council has rejected in earlier years — such as ending DC’s unique tax break for those who buy out-of-state municipal bonds helping other cities. What’s especially striking is the way these formerly liberal Democrats, echoing a national right-leaning trend in the party, adopt right-wing talking points and even cite the Chamber of Commerce as “evidence” for their views. As recounted in emails about a tense meeting with constituents held by council member and law professor Mary Cheh, who represents the richest and whitest area in the city, Ward 3, liberal voters there aired their complaints that she was abandoning the principles of the Democratic Party and her campaign promises. For instance, as Jessie Sigel, a Ward 3 resident, wrote angrily to Cheh after the meeting: The tax issue aside, I was, quite frankly, shocked to hear someone who professes to be a Democrat, suggest, as her “philosophy,” that anyone one on TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ] for more than five years doesn’t want to work; that their children don’t have proper role models, followed by righteous professions about the “dignity of work.” The language you used is akin to the old Reagan demonizing of the poor as “welfare loafers” and of the poor “coming to collect their welfare checks in Cadillacs.” If one is going to take a hard line that people should get a job, they need to ascertain that there are jobs — jobs that enable people to pay the rent and feed their children — to be had. When I asked you about jobs programs, child care programs and job training, you didn’t seem to know to what degree they exist in the district. (and, obviously, revenue would be needed to support these sorts of programs)… But embracing a “philosophy” — or as I would call it, a stereotyping of people, without making an inquiry into the group’s situation and options is reprehensible. It is something I would expect of right wing Republicans who have a particular agenda in mind and who are determined not to let logic or others’ needs get in the way. Cheh, like some other leading Democrats who are moving to slash services, used to be considered a progressive, innovative member of the City Concil. Kesh Ladduwahetty, an activist with DC for Democracy , also recounted: Cheh is adamantly against the tax increase, and there’s nothing more substantive in her reasoning than “sending the wrong signal” and small [businesses]. When pressed about small biz, she doesn’t have any data (she’s just repeating Kwame’s rhetoric). Mary Beth Tinker [another DC4D member] called her on the fact that she kept citing the Chamber of Commerce, although nothing specific. Mary Beth also heard her say something to the effect that in order to get some things that she wants done, she has to do some other things (sounds like a blatant statement about trading favors with Kwame). Bottom line: she’s not budging for this vote (not that we can see), but she got the message loud & clear that her progressive base is shocked and disappointed in her. On Tuesday, groups like Save Our Safety Net hope that some in the city’s progressive base will turn out and start calling members of the City Council to support fully funding city services. To that end, some of her young progressive supporters even created a mocking rap video calling on Cheh to respond to the wishes of her constituents on taxes and the safety net:

Read the full article →

Jane White: So Much for a "Best 401(k) Plan" Ranking: Apparently It’s None of Your Business

May 24, 2011

Like millions of her peers, my daughter graduated from college last weekend and I’m already nagging her about participating in the 401(k) plan at the university where she’s working as a research assistant until she starts grad school. Needless to say, she’s rolling her eyes at my nagging. It amazes me that job hunters don’t evaluate their future employer’s retirement plans. While I understand that many young people are happy to have ANY job in this stinky economy — as Arianna Huffington pointed out , the unemployment rate for those age 16 to 24 is more than 18% — if you have a choice you should make “deferred compensation” as high a priority as the size of your paycheck. As I’ve pointed out in previous posts, the vast majority of 401(k) participants will have to stay on the job AT LEAST another 10 years beyond the normal retirement age because of the typical puny 3% employer matching contribution, the second lowest in the advanced world, a necessity that’s not disclosed to them. This week I had hoped to launch the first annual Best 401(k) list, citing those employers who make generous 401(k) matching contributions. Unfortunately, when I asked a company that rates retirement plans to come up with some data, I learned that many of their findings were inaccurate. And I couldn’t research this because while employers who offer these plans are required to file Form 5500s in order to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and there’s a website called Free-Erisa.com where these forms can be found, the generosity of the plans isn’t in the form but in the “auditor’s report,” which isn’t on Free-ERISA.com. Unfortunately, the best I could do was fact-check a handful of “Fortune 50″ companies and it appears that none of America’s richest companies contribute the equivalent of 9% of pay as every employer except the self-employed are required to do in Australia. Here goes: Chevron offers a dollar per dollar match, up to 8% of pay, for Marathon and Exxon Mobil the match is 7%, and for IBM and Citibank it’s 6%. (I disqualified any company whose matching contributions are made in company stock). If you think that newer high-tech companies are more generous, think again. When I contacted Apple and Google, which have been known to lure programmers with generous paychecks, media representatives at Apple didn’t return my calls and a Google spokesperson said it was “unable to participate.” So I found out Google’s benefits myself by — surprise, surprise — googling “Google” and “benefits” and finding out that their 401(k) plan features the typical measly 50% matching contribution up to 6% of compensation (a similar search for Apple’s plan didn’t turn up anything.) Google CEO Sergey Brin should realize if he wants to attract more future Sergeys he ought to offer them the deferred compensation they deserve, not just gyms, laundry rooms and massage parlors. If Google and other frugal companies aren’t willing to offer adequate retirement plans, they ought to be required to make their stinginess public so that prospective and current employees can look elsewhere.

Read the full article →

WATCH: College Grads Move Home, Face Uncertain Futures

May 24, 2011

LANSDALE, Pa. — One midnight in April, Sabrina Malik pulls her red Chevy Blazer into her mother’s asphalt driveway, removes the keys from the ignition, and stops to take a deep breath. Alone in the darkness, a sense of defeat courses through her body — disappointment about her past and uncertainty about what lies ahead. This, she thinks to herself, is surely what failure feels like. Six years ago, Malik fled this town for Syracuse University. Since graduating in 2009 with a bachelor’s degree in art history, she has yet to find a decent job. She hadn’t planned on moving back home and, at the age of 23, never expected to return to her mother’s house for an extended and open-ended period of time. “At times, it really feels very personal, it really feels like I’ve failed,” says Malik, standing in the kitchen of her mother’s two-story stone house and recalling the eight weeks since she returned home. She’s wearing khaki shorts and white socks that come up to her ankles. Glasses frame her brown eyes and wavy chestnut hair grazes her shoulders. “Your dream is a very personal thing and when you can’t do it, it feels like you’re being told that you’re not talented enough and that you haven’t worked hard enough.” After graduating from college, Malik moved to Boston. There, she worked as a nanny, sold books, and waited tables — a series of dead-end jobs that didn’t pay more than the minimum wage, didn’t require a college degree, and weren’t remotely related to what she wanted to do for the rest of her life. Two months ago, she ran out of money and drove home from Boston to Lansdale, a middle-class suburb north of Philadelphia, her car brimming with the contents of post-college life: canned food, twinkle lights, potted plants. A dozen of her paintings, stacked to the ceiling, kept hitting the back of her head. When a gas station attendant in New Jersey asked why she was moving and where she was headed, Malik didn’t know quite how to respond. She’s hardly alone. Malik is part of a generation of 20-somethings that’s experiencing what it’s like to graduate from college, move back in with your parents, and then get stuck there. Though estimates vary, a recent study by Twentysomething Inc., a consulting firm specializing in marketing to young adults, predicted that of the 2 million graduates in the class of 2011, 85 percent will return home because they can’t secure jobs that might give them more choices and more control over their lives . To be sure, having a college degree still matters. Nationwide, while the unemployment rate hovers around 9 percent, the jobless rate for college graduates 25 years and older is 4.5 percent. By contrast, 20 to 24-year-olds who only have a high school diploma are contending with an unemployment rate of nearly 20 percent. While college graduates typically navigate periods of economic decline far better than those lacking such credentials, the past few years have still taken an especially brutal toll on them. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the jobless rate for younger workers with a college degree has more than doubled since the recession began four years ago — from 3.5 percent in April of 2007 to 6.4 percent in April of this year. For college graduates under the age of 25, finding stable work is a particular challenge. According to Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University, about half, or 3.2 million, are “underutilized”  — meaning they’re unemployed, working part-time, or working a job outside of the college labor market, such as bartending or waiting tables. Added to the lack of jobs is an increased amount of debt. Student loan debt recently outpaced credit card debt in terms of total amounts owed by borrowers. By year’s end, it is on track to surpass a trillion dollars, according to Mark Kantrowitz, an expert on student financial aid who runs the websites FinAid.org and Fastweb.com. According to the Institute for College Access and Success, an independent, nonprofit organization that works to make higher education more affordable, the average graduate finishes school with $24,000 of debt — though many struggle to repay far more. Like Malik, many 20-somethings are experiencing early adulthood as one long pause in their lives, affecting not only conventional coming-of-age milestones such as becoming financially independent, but more deeply personal things as well — like their hopes and their dreams.  THE AMERICAN DREAM Recently, after sending out dozens of resumes and cover letters, all of which went unanswered, Malik’s spirits plummeted. Even rejection feels better than no response at all, she thought to herself. In her second-floor bedroom, where handmade quilts cover the bed and charcoal drawings line the walls, she tries as best she can to avoid her mother’s notice. Mostly, she just doesn’t want her to worry. But Marilyn Malik is close to her daughter and is an expert at reading Sabrina’s shifting moods. “Sabrina gets down on herself and I worry,” says Marilyn, sitting in her home office in the basement, where she works as a nursing supervisor for a health insurance company. While she says that her daughter is welcome to live in the house for as long as she needs, she hopes that Sabrina might find a job sooner rather than later. And Marilyn is adjusting to the fact that her daughter’s path may not mirror the one she took 30 years ago, when, as a college-educated young woman, she first ventured out into the world.  Marilyn, 53, grew up in a small town in the Poconos. Her father worked as an electrician; her mother worked as a nurse. Marilyn studied nursing in college and she and her parents split the $4,000 annual tuition. She worked as a waitress to earn her share. A few years after college, Marilyn married Ajmal Malik, a Pakistani immigrant. He attended college at the University of Lahore in Pakistan and earned two master’s degrees after moving to the U.S. The couple made their home in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., where they raised Sabrina and her older brother Omar, who’s now 25. In those early years, Ajmal, an accountant, worked his way up the ladder while Marilyn picked up night shifts at the nearby hospital. She describes their standard of living as lower-middle-class — borrowing money to purchase their first starter home and relying on quick, cheap dinners of soup and biscuits to get by. Ajmal died of cancer when his children were nine and 11, leaving Marilyn to support an entire household on her income alone. “You grieve for yourself, and you grieve for your kids,” explains Marilyn, who started working full-time after Ajmal died and has yet to let up. Sending both kids to college was always the plan. The majority of the payout from her deceased husband’s life insurance went towards a college savings account, which ultimately wasn’t enough to cover the high costs associated with sending two kids to out-of-state schools. Marilyn paid about $100,000 for Sabrina to attend Syracuse University in upstate N.Y. and took out another $20,000 in loans to cover the rest. Sabrina and Omar, who attended the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, will have to shoulder their own graduate school costs, however. “She’d probably say no to doing things if she knew how much everything cost,” says Marilyn, who pays down the $20,000 in Sabrina’s student loans while also saving up for her own retirement. Sabrina is struggling to pay off about $2,000 in credit card debt and her remaining student debts weigh on her relationship with her mother. Marilyn hates owing money and tries to put an extra $100 or $200 towards paying down the student loans whenever she can. Marilyn and Sabrina find it hard to talk about Sabrina’s student loans and generally avoid the subject. Sabrina wishes she could do more to help her mother pay the debt and had planned on having a job after graduating that would allow her to do that — yet another part of her future that hasn’t exactly gone as planned. While living in Boston, she made barely enough to cover her own rent and utilities, let alone scrape together enough extra to help her mother with the monthly loan repayments. Sabrina also wonders whether paying so much for college has made her mother’s own life more insecure. “I know she’s further away from her own retirement because she sent us to such expensive schools” says Malik, whose plans for graduate education are indefinitely on hold until she can save up some money. Right now, even $80 application fees for graduate school seem like a lot.  Although Marilyn remarried a few years ago, her first husband’s absence is deeply felt — especially now, when their daughter is struggling. “I wonder if he had been around, whether my kids would have been better placed, whether they would have received better advice,” says Marilyn, who plans to work for at least another decade. She long ago decided that sending her kids to college was more important to her than saving for the day when she could retire. By this point in her life, Marilyn imagined that her daughter would have already embarked upon a well-paying career and be living on her own. She also wonders what it means for the next generation of 20-somethings, and whether they’ll have access to better opportunities than their parents’ generation. “My generation had it better than what my parents had and you’d think it would continue progressing that same way,” she says. “Historically, each generation gets better as it goes along — they’re more affluent, they have more education, they reach more goals. This generation, you would hope that would happen, too, but it doesn’t seem to be going that way.” DREAMS ARE CHEAP Half a century ago, 77 percent of women and 65 percent of men had attained traditional markers of maturity by their 30th birthday: They had left home, finished school, gotten a job, married, and started a family. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2000, less than half of 30-year-old women and just one-third of 30-year-old men had attained similar markers of adulthood. A lot, but not all, of the shift has to do with work — or, more specifically, a lack of work, say analysts and others . They argue that the current recession has pushed 20-somethings farther and faster in a direction they were already headed. Sending your kid to college once was a way of ensuring their sure-footed success. But with 20-somethings mired in debt and confronting a dearth of decent-paying jobs, many are returning to the nest. “I can assure you that few people in my generation are living high off the hog in their parents’ house,” says Matthew Segal, the 25-year-old founder of Our Time , a national membership organization for young people under 30. He says he resents the popular characterization of 20-somethings as lazy and unmoored. “Trust me, they’re not getting too comfortable sleeping in their childhood bedroom or eating out of their parents’ fridge. They’re moving home because they don’t have jobs and they have a lot of debt.” Except for designated downtime, when she’s either making art or weaving on her loom, Malik spends much of her time avoiding thinking about what became of the goals her parents helped her to set. Her mother always encouraged her to think and dream big. Yet since graduating from college, she’s found herself doing the exact opposite. Her dream for the future used to encompass a well-appointed and comfortable life — a farmhouse, two artist studios, a husband, and several children. “But it’s not worth dreaming so big anymore,” says Malik. “My plans now are far less extravagant. I guess I’m learning to dream on a much smaller scale.” Specifically, she doesn’t think she’ll be able to afford a home as nice as her mother’s. Nor, she predicts, will she be able to send her own children to schools as fancy as those that she attended. “The hope that things are going to get better is really all we have,” she explains. “I mean, on top of being the generation that’s struggling, we don’t want to be the generation that’s cynical, too.” Some scholars attribute such hard-wired optimism to the way that the parents of 20-somethings raised them. Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais co-author books about millennials (typically defined as the generation born between 1982 and 2003). “Millennials were raised the way Bill Cosby told parents to raise their kids — set rules, show encouragement, don’t use physical discipline, build up a child’s self-esteem,” explains Winograd. “If you tell someone from zero to 13 that they’re always doing a nice job and that they’re really special and wonderful, they’ll wind up believing they are.” Self-confidence breeds optimism, according to Winograd and Hais, even when times are tough. “The millennials don’t have a sense that everything is wonderful, because obviously it isn’t, but they believe as a country that things will get better and their lives will also get better,” says Hais. “In part, it’s because they’re young and they actually have time to accomplish this. But it’s also because generations like the millennials feel they’ve accomplished good things in the past and that they will again in the future because their parents told them so.” Jeffrey Jensen Arnett, a psychology professor at Clark University, is also struck by the optimism of the young adults that he studies. “I think the main reason for their optimism is that dreams are cheap in emerging adulthood. That is, their dreams haven’t yet been tested in the fires of real, adult life. And who knows, maybe they really will find their dream job?” In general, young people are taking longer to assume more traditional adult responsibilities and young lives are unfolding in a less predictable sequence , Arnett says. He views the twenties as a new and distinct life stage and classifies it as “emerging adulthood.” According to Arnett, this stage generally starts around the age of 18 and continues until an individual is in his or her mid-to-late twenties. While the category itself is fluid, “emerging adulthood” refers to a time during which young people are relatively free of obligations. But many 20-somethings, like Malik, are increasingly delaying adult responsibilities because they can’t secure a job stable enough to allow them to take the steps necessary to establish an independent life. As such, even youthful optimism has its limits . Despite a general proclivity toward positive thinking, analysts say current circumstances are weighing down this generation of 20-somethings. “The mood for young people definitely isn’t as optimistic as it’s been in the past,” says Carl Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University. Last week, he and his colleagues released a study titled “Unfulfilled Expectations: Recent College Graduates Struggle in a Troubled Economy.” It polled young people who graduated from college between 2006 and 2010. “You expect people to be optimistic when they’re young about their ability to get ahead,” Van Horn says. “It’s pretty clear that this group of college students are feeling very much like their opportunities have been stunted.” A FALSE PROMISE? Since moving home, the highlight of Malik’s weekend involves walking to the edge of her mother’s driveway on Sunday morning and retrieving the hand-delivered copy of The New York Times . She’s on a $15 weekly budget and getting the paper delivered is a rare indulgence. Last Sunday, Malik accompanied her extended family to a pancake breakfast to support the local firehouse in the nearby town of Sellersville, Pa. Without traffic, it’s about a 20-minute drive from Lansdale. As her family and some of her mother’s friends waited for a table, Malik carved out a tiny space where she sat and read the paper in silence. She wasn’t up for answering the questions that usually follow — about what she was up to, or how the job search was going. She mostly just needed a break from the constant inquisition. “I spend a lot of my time trying as best I can to appease everyone and show them that I’m in good spirits and putting forth all this extra effort,” says Malik. “Every once in a while, I just need to be by myself. They know what I’m going through.” Even the relentless optimism of millennials is straining under the depth and length of the current recession. A poll released in April by AP-Viacom indicated that among Americans between the ages of 18 to 24, there was skepticism about the notion that life would improve with each passing generation. Four in 10 of those surveyed predicted difficulty in raising a family and affording the lifestyle they felt they deserved. Like homebuyers who took on outsized mortgages they couldn’t afford, either out of ignorance or because banks cajoled them, in order to realize the American Dream of home ownership, many students and their parents have taken on crushing piles of educational debt in order to realize another part of the American Dream: a college education. Andrew Sum, a 64-year-old economist at Northeastern University who’s studied the college labor market for the past 30 years, thinks the current economic slump is giving both recent graduates and their parents a rude awakening. Sum grew up in Gary, Ind. with a father who worked as a welder. While he says that he and his four siblings were able to achieve a better life than their parents, for the first time in recent American history, the majority of the young people he studies are not. “Every generation ought to try and leave behind a better world for the next generation,” says Sum. “And until recently, it’s generally been true that the next generation exceeded the living standard of the current one. But over the last decade, that’s no longer the case.” One of Sum’s pet theories is the “age twist effect.” He says that over the decade from 2000 to 2010, the younger someone was, the more likely they were to get fired or be otherwise left without a job. Historically, and in every decade since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began compiling such data, it’s been the exact opposite. Sum’s findings conclude that 7 million more young people under the age of 30 would be working today if the labor market behaved as it did only a decade ago. Sum and his colleagues predict that underutilization and underemployment will leave an indelible mark on this generation. In the near term, Sum finds college graduates moving home, and staying there. And while college degrees matter, they only matter if young people are able to then convert them into a job — hence, generating the considerable college premium. “If you can manage to do that, you can do well,” says Sum. “But if you end up outside, you’ll only do marginally better than someone who has a high school diploma and those losses stay with you for a lifetime.” For Malik, both in terms of her current and future income, the longer she’s out of work, the more dire the consequences will be. Being unemployed is always worse than working, but it’s ultimately the type of job she gets that will affect her future stability. For instance, should Malik secure yet another job outside the college labor market — working again as a nanny or as a clerk in a retail shop — the chances that she’ll regain a more permanent economic toehold will grow ever more unlikely. The impact that the job she lands will have on her future wages is likely to be staggering. For the public at large, Sum finds there’s a 73 percent gap in the annual earnings of college graduates that have a college labor market job versus those that work in a job that doesn’t require a degree — say, the difference between working as a paralegal and a receptionist in a law firm. Bachelor’s degree holders between the ages of 22 to 64 that have a college labor market job make an average salary of $52,873. Those working outside the college labor market earn $30,503 — or a difference in salary of more than $22,000 a year.  But many 20-somethings, like Malik, are also struggling with what is likely a case of bad economic timing. Graduates of 2009 were hit especially hard. A study conducted by the  John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers indicates that 50 percent of 2009 graduates are either unemployed or working in jobs that don’t require a college degree. Lisa B. Khan, who studies economics at Yale’s School of Management, recently conducted a study that looked at the long-term impact of graduating into a weak economy. Khan examined young people that graduated from college during the peak of the recession that occurred in the 1980s. In their first three years on the job market, Khan found they made about 30 percent less than classmates with more advantageous economic timing. And their subsequent salaries, even a dozen years later, were between eight and ten percent lower. This means that it might take Malik, who graduated two years ago during the beginning of a particularly brutal recession, up to a decade to recover the wages she might have earned had she sidestepped the downturn altogether. Paul Oyer, an economist at Stanford University, concedes that young people who start work when times are tough not only get behind, but generally have a tough time catching up. But Oyer also thinks that luck plays a role in the making of any successful career, good economic times or bad. What does concern him is that some historical trends seem to be withering in the current economy. Although wealth in America has increased from generation to generation, Oyer isn’t convinced that the current generation of 20-somethings will enjoy the rewards of a similar phenomenon. He attributes the shift to globalization and the number of available jobs. Because of these factors, he doesn’t think it makes much sense for young people to pile on educational debt to attend elite schools when they have less expensive alternatives — unless, of course, their parents are willing to go on the hook for it. Parents exert a powerful shaping force on their children’s decisions to go to college, as well as which college to attend. In addition, they are often caught up in the emotional rush that a college education entails, further complicating an issue that has already become a financial minefield for the middle class. “All along, I was going to make it work,” explains Marilyn. “If I had to take out loans, I was going to do that.” Once Sabrina and Omar were admitted into the colleges of their dreams, Marilyn saw it as her personal responsibility to make sure they could attend — even when it meant taking out additional loans in order to finance it. And while Marilyn says she doesn’t regret her investment, she assumed that a $120,000 degree would at least translate into a decent-paying job for her daughter. “One thing that terrifies parents more than budget deficits or a weak economy is job security for their kids. They’re afraid they won’t be able to pass along their middle class status to the next generation,” says Anthony P. Carnevale, who directs Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. “In raising a child in America, the fear of failing is just enormous. Sending your kid to college used to pretty much guarantee their future success. It no longer necessarily works that way.” And, of course, what if this generation simply doesn’t value the same things their parents’ generation did? John Della Volpe, who directs polling at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics, spends much of the year gauging the thoughts of young people. His company SocialSphere recently conducted a study of 5,000 millennials between the ages of 16 and 24. It asked them to think about the next five to seven years of their lives and to rank the importance of what they hoped to achieve. His findings indicate that many young people aren’t focused on becoming famous or making piles of money. On the contrary, their hopes for the future revolve around making a contribution to society and staying in close touch with family and friends. “There’s a potential for this younger generation to have an economic reset,” explains Della Volpe. “It’s now okay to stay in your hometown.” AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE When it’s your decision, returning to your hometown is one thing. Being stuck there feels like something else entirely.  Malik says her days are an exercise in resilience. She has yet to shake her loneliness and general feeling of isolation. Most weekdays, she gets up by nine o’clock and immediately forces herself to get dressed. After breakfast, she typically positions herself on one of two floral upholstered couches in the sunroom, where, with laptop in hand, she begins the daily chore of scouring websites for job openings. When not job hunting, Malik helps out around the house — taking out the trash, doing the dishes, going grocery shopping, walking the dog, or making dinner a few nights a week. In some ways, the chores remind her of being in high school. Before her mother remarried and she and her brother headed off to college, it was just the three of them helping out around the house. Growing up, when her mother made dinner or when the house needed cleaning, the two siblings alternated chores. “Now that I’m back, I do those same kinds of things and it feels like the least I can do,” explains Malik. “It doesn’t feel like a task or a chore. I’m just helping my mom out, like I’ve always done.” But now, Malik is a grown woman. Part of her yearns for her own place where she can come and go as she pleases, and where the rules are hers and hers alone. On visits to see her boyfriend, who lives in Brooklyn, N.Y. and works for a private art collector, she sees glimpses of the independent life she expected to be living by now. Until she can land her ultimate gig of working as a curator in an art gallery, or begin a long trajectory of jobs that might eventually get her there, she’s looking for something to pay the bills. She’s looked into working as a clerk in a local retail shop and selling hot water heaters. Businesses in Lansdale are inundated with swarms of recent colleges graduates looking for any job they can get. Locally, there’s the option of working for a big pharmaceutical company, Starbucks or Walgreens, but not much else. When things start to feel overwhelming, Malik finds it helpful to make lists of things to accomplish. The current two-page iteration lists everything from big to small stuff — like getting a job and someday opening an art gallery to straightening her hair and eating fewer bagels. A recent addition, which has yet to be crossed off, is that Malik aspires to be less hard on herself. Namely, that for the time being at least, it’s okay to allow herself to feel sad sometimes. “Right now, it’s a battle of trying to remain levelheaded — and I don’t know if it’s trying to stay optimistic, or become more realistic, or just learn to be okay with going through the motions,” she says. “It feels like a lot of pressure. I want to make everyone proud. I want to blow everyone out of the water with everything I’ve accomplished. And I just can’t get there.” 

Read the full article →

Investors Eye Key Economic Data from U.S. Including GDP and Income Report

May 22, 2011

Investors Eye Key Economic Data from U.S. Including GDP and Income Report

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: Actually, "The Rich" Don’t "Create Jobs," We Do.

May 13, 2011

You hear it again and again, variation after variation on a core message: if you tax rich people it kills jobs. You hear about “job-killing tax hikes,” or that “taxing the rich hurts jobs,” “taxes kill jobs,” “taxes take money out of the economy, “if you tax the rich they won’t be able to provide jobs.” … on and on it goes. So do we really depend on “the rich” to “create” jobs? Or do jobs get created when they fill a need? Here is a recent typical example, Obama Touts Job-Killing Tax Plan , written by a “senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth,” Some people, in their pursuit of profit, benefit their fellow humans by creating new or better goods and services, and then by employing others. We call such people entrepreneurs and productive workers. Others are parasites who suck the blood and energy away from the productive. Such people are most often found in government. Perhaps the most vivid description of what happens to a society where the parasites become so numerous and powerful that they destroy their productive hosts is Ayn Rand’s classic novel “Atlas Shrugged.” … Producers and Parasites The idea that there are producers and parasites as expressed in the example above has become a core philosophy of conservatives. They claim that wealthy people “produce” and are rich because they “produce.” The rest of us are “parasites” who suck blood and energy from the productive rich, by taxing them. In this belief system, We, the People are basically just “the help” who are otherwise in the way, and taxing the producers to pay for our “entitlements.” We “take money” from the producers through taxes, which are “redistributed” to the parasites. They repeat the slogan, “Taxes are theft,” and take the “money we earned” by “force” (i.e. government.) Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner echoes this core philosophy of “producers” and “parasites,” saying yesterday , I believe raising taxes on the very people that we expect to reinvest in our economy and to hire people is the wrong idea,” he said. “For those people to give that money to the government…means it wont get reinvested in our economy at a time when we’re trying to create jobs.” “The very people” who “hire people” shouldn’t have to pay taxes because that money is then taken out of the productive economy and just given to the parasites — “the help” — meaning you and me… So is it true? Do “they” create jobs? Do we “depend on” the wealthy to “create jobs?” Demand Creates Jobs I used to own a business and have been in senior positions at other businesses, and I know many others who have started and operated businesses of all sizes. I can tell you from direct experience that I tried very hard to employ the right number of people . What I mean by this is that when there were lots of customers I would add people to meet the demand. And when demand slacked off I had to let people go. If I had extra money I wouldn’t just hire people to sit around and read the paper. And if I had more customers than I could handle that — the revenue generated by meeting the additional demand from the extra customers — is what would pay for employing more people to meet the demand. It is a pretty simple equation: you employ the right number of people to meet the demand your business has. If you ask around you will find that every business tries to employ the right number of people to meet the demand . Any business owner or manager will tell you that they hire based on need , not on how much they have in the bank. (Read more here, in last year’s Businesses Do Not Create Jobs .) Taxes make absolutely no difference in the hiring equation. In fact, paying taxes means you are already making money, which means you have already hired the right number of people. Taxes are based on subtracting your costs from your revenue, and if you have profits after you cover your costs, then you might be taxed. You don’t even calculate your taxes until well after the hiring decision has been made. You don;t lay people off to “cover” your taxes. And even if you did lay people off to “cover’ taxes it would lower your costs and you would have more profit, which means you would have more taxes… except that laying someone off when you had demand would cause you to have less revenue, … and you see how ridiculous it is to associate taxes with hiring at all! People coming in the door and buying things is what creates jobs. The Rich Do Not Create Jobs Lots of regular people having money to spend is what creates jobs and businesses. That is the basic idea of demand-side economics and it works. In a consumer-driven economy designed to serve people , regular people with money in their pockets is what keeps everything going. And the equal opportunity of democracy with its reinvestment in infrastructure and education and the other fruits of democracy is fundamental to keeping a demand-side economy functioning. When all the money goes to a few at the top everything breaks down. Taxing the people at the top and reinvesting the money into the democratic society is fundamental to keeping things going. Democracy Creates Jobs This idea that a few wealthy people — the “producers” — hand everything down to the rest of us — “the parasites” — is fundamentally at odds with the concept of democracy. In a democracy we all have an equal voice and an equal stake in how our society and our economy does. We do not “depend” on the good graces of a favored few for our livelihoods. We all are supposed to have an equal opportunity, and equal rights. And there are things we are all entitled to — “entitlements” — that we get just because we were born here . But we all share in the responsibility to cover the costs of democracy — with the rich having a greater responsibility than the rest of us because they receive the most benefit from it. This is why we have “progressive taxes” where the rates are supposed to go up as the income does. Taxes Are The Lifeblood Of Democracy And The Prosperity That Democracy Produces In a democracy the rich are supposed to pay more to cover things like building and maintaining the roads and schools because these are the things that enable their wealth. They actually do use the roads and schools more because the roads enable their businesses to prosper and the schools provide educated employees. But it isn’t just that the rich use roads more, it is that everyone has a right to use roads and a right to transportation because we are a democracy and everyone has the same rights. And as a citizen in a democracy you have an obligation to pay your share for that. A democracy is supposed have a progressive tax structure that is in proportion to the means to pay . We do this because those who get more from the system do so because the democratic system offers them that ability . Their wealth is because of our system and therefore they owe back to the system in proportion. (Plus, history has taught the lesson that great wealth opposes democracy, so democracy must oppose the accumulation of great, disproportional wealth. In other words, part of the contract of living in a democracy is your obligation to protect the democracy and high taxes at the top is one of those protections.) The conservative “producer and parasite” anti-tax philosophy is fundamentally at odds with the concepts of democracy (which they proudly acknowledge – see more here , and here ) and should be understood and criticized as such. Taxes do not “take money out of the economy” they enable the economy. The rich do not “create jobs, We, the People create jobs . This post originally appeared at Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) at their Blog for OurFuture . I am a Fellow with CAF. Sign up here for the CAF daily summary .

Read the full article →

Bryce Covert: Gas Prices up, Wages Down, Americans Caught in the Middle

May 11, 2011

Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 . When picturing people who are so far into debt they can’t get on top of their bills, many likely see images of flat screen TVs, Escalades, and giant, unnecessary houses. But the sad truth is that one of the biggest reasons Americans carry $796.5 billion in revolving debt is that wages have stagnated while the cost of necessities rose. That’s particularly true now, at the end of a decade where wages actually dropped, 13.7 million people are unemployed, and prices are through the roof. Gas prices are soaring . The average price is up 80 cents per gallon since January, up to $3.96 . With Americans consuming about 140 gallons per year, that’s an extra $112 billion over the course of 2011 that consumers will have to shell out at the pump. So is rent. It is too damn high . A new study came out recently that showed the level of renters spending more than half of their income on rent is the highest in half a century. That’s not just low-income people, either. “About 26 percent of renters — or 10.1 million people — spent more than half their pre-tax household income on rent and utilities in 2009,” the Washington Post reported. Under ideal circumstances, renters aren’t supposed to spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Not to mention buying food. Restaurants are now considering raising prices due to rising commodity costs. Prices for purchased meals and beverages rose almost 2% between March 2010 and March 2011, the biggest increase since November 2009. And health care is still unaffordable for too many of us. Last year, four in 10 Americans struggled to pay their medical bills and 40% had to forgo needed care due to high costs. What do Americans do when we can’t afford the necessities? What we’ve learned to do over the past 30 years as our wages stagnated: use credit cards to plug the gaping holes. Only this time it’s worse, because wages have actually shrunk over the past decade, with the median family’s earnings falling from $52,388 a year in 2000 to $47,127 in 2010. We still have 9% unemployment. And 27% of Americans had no personal savings as of February this year, up from 22% 18 months before that. Meanwhile, access to credit is flowing less quickly than it was before the recession — and when it does flow, it comes with overpriced fees and interest. While banks are getting back into lending to riskier, lower-income consumers, it’s a slow trickle. Most card mailings are targeting the wealthy, with only 17% going to borrowers with dinged credit scores — compared to 39% in 2007. And the cards those consumers are offered come with higher fees and interest rates . The NYTimes reports, for example, “Capital One… is offering low-end cards that carry interest rates of 18 percent or higher and annual fees of up to $50.” The ability to cover up our income inequality and wage stagnation with easy credit is coming to end. So now what are workers supposed to do when they can’t afford life’s basics?

Read the full article →

Paul Ryan, AARP Battle In Spat Over His Medicare Plan

May 10, 2011

WASHINGTON — AARP is firing back at Republican budget maven Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for accusing it of putting business interests before the needs of older Americans. Ryan sent an email to supporters of his Prosperity PAC Tuesday, slamming AARP over its new multi-million dollar ad campaign that accuses Washington of trying to pay its bills by shorting the Medicare benefits Americans have earned. The spot doesn’t mention Ryan or any party, but it is clearly a shot at Ryan’s budget, which would shift Medicare from its current from, a government-run plan, to a voucher-like private system in which the government subsidizes people to buy their own insurance. Ryan did not appreciate the ad, and in the email, an adviser to his PAC trashed it. “Last week, [AARP], a left-leaning pressure group with significant business interests in the insurance industry , launched a national ad campaign that intentionally misleads seniors about the Medicare debate,” the email read. Republicans in the House have taken aim at AARP recently, charging, like Ryan, that AARP is prioritizing its business interests over its advocacy. A lengthy report using much of AARP’s own data suggested the income AARP gets from endorsing certain insurance plans was clouding its vision. But AARP found Ryan’s latest accusation nonsensical, because Ryan’s plan would actually be better for AARP’s business interests than the current Medicare system AARP is defending. It would shift tens of millions of Americans into the private market, and in theory offer a massive boon to AARP’s business side, giving the influential lobby group little financial incentive to oppose the idea. “We make decisions on policy based on what we believe will be in the best interests of Americans over age 50. A recent attack on AARP from a political action committee erroneously suggests otherwise,” said AARP spokesman Jim Dau in a statement. “The truth is that the budget plan passed by the House probably would present more opportunities for AARP to strengthen its finances, since every older American would be forced into private Medicare plans, including those that AARP brands,” Dau noted. “We opposed the legislation nonetheless because we believe the goal should be to strengthen Medicare, not upend it,” he said. One Capitol Hill operative who works on medical issues — and who requested anonymity because he works with both sides of the aisle — laughed outright at Ryan’s complaint, instead seeing the logic of AARP’s position. “Paul Ryan hasn’t been tagged with the stupid label before, but that’s stupid. It’s too obviously partisan,” the operative said, suggesting AARP would do far better financially with the larger private insurance market envisioned by Ryan. Ryan’s email also accuses AARP of partisan maneuvering. “Unfortunately, Washington’s special interest groups, like the AARP, have decided to play politics,” the message concluded. “We either need them to have a serious conversation or get out of the way.” But Dau countered that AARP has been consistent, for instance opposing commissions such as those envisioned by the White House that would set Medicare rates. Ryan, the Budget Committee chairman, is not averse to listening to special interests in the insurance industry himself. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Ryan’s Prosperity PAC got $83,250 in contributions from the insurance industry in the 2010 election cycle. The industry also donated $234,352 to Ryan’s 2010 reelection campaign

Read the full article →

Reports Of Mortgage Fraud Rose To Record Level Last Year

May 10, 2011

After the housing market crashed, reports of suspected mortgage fraud soared. As lenders, homeowners and brokers rushed to close deals, the process during the boom years was tainted by fakery, according to reports later submitted to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, an agency of the Treasury Department. The number of reports of suspected mortgage fraud rose to its highest level on record last year, as 70,472 reports were submitted to the government agency, according to a new release from the LexisNexis Mortgage Asset Research Institute. That’s nearly double the number of cases reported in 2006 when the market was at its peak, and it’s nearly 22 times the number of cases reported in 2000. From the LexisNexis release: Fraudsters thrive on inadequacies within lengthy loan-related processes and a lack of consistency across organizations and/or industries that help them hide their true motives. Technology has enabled faster loan production through automation, ease of processing, and analytics. Industry professionals have keen knowledge of those processes, which makes it much easier to manipulate protocols in place to thwart adverse activities. The number of verified cases of mortgage fraud declined from 2009 to 2010, but that’s partially attributable to a decline in the number of new loans, the LexisNexis report says. Reports of suspected fraud increased nearly 5 percent during that period. Homeowners and investors have filed numerous lawsuits against mortgage companies, claiming that crucial mortgage documents were misplaced or even forged. Some of these suits have been successful, bolstered by testimony from bank employees. In a widely cited example, an employee of the lender now owned by Bank of America testified in a New Jersey court in 2009 that her company regularly held onto mortgage notes even as the loans were sold to investors, contradicting what contracts usually require. Without a note, a bank cannot prove it has a right to foreclose on a home; homeowners have used the absence of a note to contest foreclosures. Likewise, a missing note compromises the legal rights of an investor in a mortgage security, a situation that has prompted some investors to sue the banks that sold them the securities. But it’s not just the banks who have been accused of fraud. The Wall Street Journal describes a practice some brokers allegedly used, in which they would get artificially low valuations of distressed homes, and then help a buyer sell those homes for a profit. Homeowners, too, have been accused of misstating their income on mortgage documents. One borrower is now serving a 21-month prison sentence for mortgage fraud, the New York Times reported. The chiefs of the lenders that helped fuel this boom, meanwhile, have largely escaped punishment. Examples of alleged fraud extend to the foreclosure process as well. When it came out last fall that employees at foreclosure processing companies would sign thousands of foreclosure documents daily without even reading them, some of the county’s biggest lenders temporarily halted their foreclosures. The nation’s five biggest mortgage lenders — Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Ally Financial — have been accused of wrongfully foreclosing on homeowners and improperly handling mortgages. All 50 state attorneys general along with the Obama administration are working to reach a settlement deal. Fines could reach $30 billion , The Huffington Post reported.

Read the full article →

Video: Goggins Says 10-Year Treasury Yield to Rise to Around 4%

April 29, 2011

April 29 (Bloomberg) — Tom Goggins, a portfolio manager who helps oversee the John Hancock Strategic Income Fund, talks about his investment strategy for fixed income. Goggins speaks with Matt Miller on Bloomberg Television’s “Street Smart.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Richard Kirsch: We’re Not Broke. We’ve Been Robbed!

April 25, 2011

We’re not broke. We’ve been robbed by the super-rich and big corporations who are raking in the cash and running up the deficit. Our economy is still more than twice as large as any other country in the world. With 4% of the world’s population, we generate 24% of its wealth . We spend more on our military than almost all other nations combined and more than twice as much per person on health care as other developed countries. But over the past three decades, the rich have gotten richer while their tax rates have plummeted. While the income of the richest 400 Americans quadrupled — they now have more wealth than the 155 million Americans on the other end — their effective tax rates were cut almost in half . One thing is for sure: corporate America is not broke. Sitting on some two trillion in cash, fattened every quarter by record profits, corporate taxes are at an historic low in terms of the economy and share of federal revenues. And that includes Wall Street, which was rewarded with bailouts, bonuses and bonanza profits for igniting the deepest recession in three-quarters of a century. We’re not broke, but the wealth grab is wrecking our economy. The rich can’t spend enough to keep the economy going. The engine that drives it is a strong middle class. The problem isn’t that we haven’t generated wealth, it’s that we’ve stopped sharing the wealth we’ve generated. If wages had kept up with productivity over the past 30 years, the median wage would be 60% higher than it is now. If income had increased at the same rate for everyone from 1979 to 2006, the average family would make about $10,000 more a year , but the top 1% would make $700,000 less. We’re not broke, but the power grab of the greedy is ruining our democracy. None of this happened by accident, nor is it the inevitable result of globalization and technological change. While the rich gobbled up a bigger chunk of the United States’ economy, that hasn’t been true in other developed countries — including Germany, France and Japan — that face the same economic pressures. Our politicians have been bought off with campaign contributions and wined and dined by lobbyists, many of whom used to work for or serve in Congress. Democracy is increasingly a myth; politicians respond to the policy preferences of the richest 10% and ignore the choices of the rest of us . The result has been tax, spending, financial and trade policies that have resulted in huge deficits and a crumbling middle class. The middle class is not only the engine of our economy, it’s the glue of our democracy. A bigger middle class leads to higher voting rates and lower levels of public corruption. When we believe that the system is stacked against us, we’re more likely to drop out or cheat. It’s no wonder that despite elite celebration of economic recovery, Americans are deeply pessimistic about the future . Much of the public believes that our best days are behind us. And unless we build a movement for change, they will be right. Building a movement for change requires both anger and hope. The story I’ve just told gets people angry. To turn that anger into positive change we need the rest of the story, how we can write a happy ending if we rally together. The fact is, it doesn’t have to be this way. We can make other choices that will lead to shared prosperity, opportunity and security for all and a brighter future for our children. We can create good jobs for everyone in America. There is more than enough vital work to be done, and Americans stand ready and eager to do it. We can create tens of millions of jobs, jobs for a green economy and energy independence, jobs to rebuild our infrastructure and create a new one for the information age, jobs to educate our children and take care of our seniors. We can assure that every job — private and public — pays enough to support a family, with decent wages, health and retirement benefits and family-friendly leave policies. We can create good jobs in America with the right trade, tax, purchasing and financial policies. Each of these are political choices, within our control. We can tame the deficit without sacrificing our future by creating good jobs, increasing taxes on the wealthy and closing corporate tax loopholes, cutting unneeded military spending and controlling health care spending through a system that puts quality ahead of quantity and stops overpayments to drug and health insurance companies. There are real budget proposals in Congress that do all that. We can take our democracy back from the super-wealthy and big corporations if we create a real movement for change. We need to embed the reforms necessary for restoring our democracy — public financing of elections, slamming the revolving door shut between Congress and corporate lobbyists, a Supreme Court that has the common sense to see that money is not speech and corporations are not people — in the movement to create shared prosperity and opportunity for all. We’re not broke, but we have been impoverished by an “on-your-own” ideology that denies the best in us. At the end, this is a question of what we believe. When you stood in school and took the pledge of allegiance, was it a pledge for liberty and justice for the few, for the super-rich? Or was it a pledge for liberty and justice for all? That’s the pledge I remember taking: liberty and justice in an America that works for all. Cross-posted from New Deal 2.0 .

Read the full article →

Preeti Vissa: The Government Will Help You Build Wealth — Unless You Really Need the Help

April 24, 2011

A while back I wrote about asset poverty and how asset-building, not just income, is critical to achieving financial stability. The good news is that the federal government has a number of programs aimed at helping individuals and families build assets such as retirement savings or owning a home. The bad news is that this assistance is heavily skewed toward those who are already well-off, with very little help available to those who need it most. The Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Corporation for Enterprise Development laid all this out in depressing detail in a report issued last year that should have gotten more attention than it did. The report explains that most of this asset-building assistance doesn’t come in the form of government checks or loans, but rather as income tax breaks — deductions for mortgage interest, for example, or tax-deferred contributions to a retirement account. This means that the poor, who pay relatively little in income taxes, get next to nothing from these breaks. And even those of moderate income, who typically still don’t itemize deductions, get very little: “A typical middle-class household making $50,000 a year receives less than $500 in benefits from the most expansive of these federal policies annually; families making $100,000 get about $2,000. By contrast, taxpayers bringing in more than $1 million enjoy $95,820 in annual support through mortgage and property tax deductions and investment tax breaks.” The millionaires, in other words, get a 9.5 percent break, while those making $50,000 get only one percent. “Expressed differently,” the report notes, “more than half of the $400 billion in benefits go to the top 5 percent of taxpayers, those earning more than $167,000. Meanwhile, low-income families get next to nothing.” The mortgage interest deduction, for example, skews overwhelmingly toward higher-income taxpayers with large, expensive homes. Those of modest means trying to buy a more basic dwelling often find that this deduction doesn’t change their tax liability at all. And while the tax code is larded with breaks for big corporations, there is precious little aid for what are called “micro-entrepreneurs” — individuals with businesses that have five or fewer workers and involve under $35,000 in startup capital. Yet owning a small business is a proven way to build wealth and financial stability: Households with a business owner have more than double the likelihood of having an annual income exceeding $50,000 than those without a business owner. And at the very low end of the income scale, many federal programs actually punish attempts to save by cutting off benefits for those with even a small amount of assets. There are ways to fix this. Programs based on refundable tax credits rather than deductions are more likely to give meaningful help to low-income families. Caps on the value of homes or other deductible assets (particularly for second homes) would help level the playing field. And asset limits that bar those on government assistance from saving and building even minimal financial security need to be rethought. Many politicians get indignant when you talk about “income redistribution.” But right now, we have lots of policies that redistribute income upward, and it’s time for that to change.

Read the full article →

Bradley T. Borden: Budget Deals, Service Cuts, Tax Returns, and Pure Frustration

April 18, 2011

This year’s tax filing season coincides with the recent budget deal and President Obama’s proposal to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion. We learn about cuts to public services as we write checks to pay for them. The confluence of these events frustrates most of us. Yet, further thought deepens the level of frustration. As you prepare your tax return (or provide information to a return preparer), you probably sift through your old receipts to maximize your deductions. Perhaps you have deductible moving expenses. Maybe you can deduct a charitable contribution you made. If you own a house, you can deduct the property tax and interest you paid on your mortgage. The few thousand dollars of deductions you have saves you a few hundred dollars of taxes. You might be relieved because you save a few hundred dollars (one or two thousand if you have more children) of taxes because of the child tax credit. In the end, however, you’re still frustrated because you have to pay taxes. The real frustration comes when you realize that the tax savings you obtained through your deductions and credits are a pittance compared to what the wealthiest portion of the population saved . As a former colleague quipped, “I’m a tax attorney but I can’t afford to hire myself.” His observation suggests that a small percentage of the population — the wealthiest — reduce their taxes in ways that the middle class can’t. In fact, real tax savings come long before a person files a tax return. For example, large corporations hire tax attorneys to establish fake entities in tax havens and pretend to move their income offshore. Property owners hire tax attorneys to help them create complicated like-kind exchanges so they can pay no taxes when they sell property. Business owners sell their businesses and hire tax attorneys to help them structure the sale to be tax-free. The wealthiest save hundreds of thousands (often millions or billions) of tax dollars, compared to the hundreds of dollars those in the middle class save. Many of the tax-avoidance techniques that are available to the wealthy are legal because the wealthy promote laws that create loopholes . By supporting those laws and then paying attorneys to exploit the laws, the wealthy reduce the amount of tax they pay. If the IRS audits a wealthy person , that person can hire expensive tax attorneys to challenge the IRS’s efforts. Even wealthy tax cheats may fare better with expensive tax counsel. Middle class Americans can’t hire tax attorneys or influence legislation because they don’t have enough money. Assume a tax attorney makes $250,000 and is in the top 2% of the population (but still in the middle class). That attorney may charge tens of thousands of dollars to provide tax advice. The tax savings a tax attorney helps create must be greater than the fee the attorney charges. (For example, no one would pay an attorney $100 to save $50 of tax.) To save tens of thousands of dollars of tax, a person must have hundreds of thousands of dollars of income. And such income often comes from transactions. Even tax attorneys who make $250,000 a year generally don’t own businesses or property worth hundreds of thousands of dollars (other than a home, furniture, cars, and assets in retirement savings), so they don’t have transactions that are large enough to justify the costs of tax planning. Consequently, they get hundreds of dollars of tax savings, while they save their clients millions. This behavior of the wealthy hurts everyone. The middle class must pay more taxes or the country must forfeit services because the wealthy pay lower taxes. To illustrate, the most recent budget deal cuts spending for education, health and human services, and transportation . Those cuts affect the middle class and especially the poor; they stymie growth, hurting the future of the country. To help end the frustration most of us feel, I offer a bold proposition to both sides of the budget wrangling: do nothing else until you take goodies away from the wealthy , including corporations, and raise taxes on the wealthy. President Obama once again promised that he would not renew tax cuts for the wealthy and promised to eliminate some of the tax breaks they receive. This time he must stick with those promises, and go further (despite the efforts of those who will come to the aid of the wealthy ). Some people make millions of dollars a year. Those people should pay tax at an even higher rate than a person making $250,000. Take away the preferences for the wealthy, tax them fairly, and then worry about the other expenses. That would help reduce the frustration we feel this time of year.

Read the full article →

America’s Richest Taxpayers See Federal Taxes Dramatically Drop

April 17, 2011

WASHINGTON — As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday’s tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all. The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992. Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent. The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation’s tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent. There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. “It’s the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes. The sheer volume of credits, deductions and exemptions has both Democrats and Republicans calling for tax laws to be overhauled. House Republicans want to eliminate breaks to pay for lower overall rates, reducing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Republicans oppose raising taxes, but they argue that a more efficient tax code would increase economic activity, generating additional tax revenue. President Barack Obama said last week he wants to do away with tax breaks to lower the rates and to reduce government borrowing. Obama’s proposal would result in $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 12 years. Neither proposal included many details, putting off hard choices about which tax breaks to eliminate. In all, the tax code is filled with a total of $1.1 trillion in credits, deductions and exemptions, an average of about $8,000 per taxpayer, according to an analysis by the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent watchdog within the IRS. More than half of the nation’s tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent. Still, the wealthy have access to much more lucrative tax breaks than people with lower incomes. Obama wants the wealthy to pay so “the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford.” Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves. Shoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually “north of half a million a year.” But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000. “I simply point out to people, `Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?’” Schoenberg said. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he has a solution for rich people who want to pay more in taxes: Write a check to the IRS. There’s nothing stopping you. “There’s still time before the filing deadline for them to give Uncle Sam some more money,” Hatch said. Schoenberg said Hatch’s suggestion misses the point. “This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there’s no such things as collective goods that we produce,” Schoenberg said. “Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?” The law is packed with tax breaks that help narrow special interests. But many of the biggest tax breaks benefit millions of American families at just about every income level, making them difficult for politicians to touch. The vast majority of those who escape federal income taxes have low and medium incomes, and most of them pay other taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and retail sales taxes. The share of people paying no federal income tax has dropped slightly the past two years. It was 47 percent for 2009. The main difference for 2010 was the expiration of a tax break that exempted the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxation, Williams said. In 2009, nearly 35 million taxpayers got a tax break for paying interest on their home mortgages, and nearly 36 million taxpayers took the $1,000-per-child tax credit. About 41 million households reduced their federal income taxes by deducting state and local income and sales taxes from their taxable income. About 36 million families cut their taxes by nearly $35 billion by deducting charitable donations, and 28 million taxpayers saved a total of $24 billion because their income from Social Security and railroad pensions was untaxed. “As a matter of policy, there would be a lot of ways to save money and actually make these things work better,” said Leonard Burman, a public affairs professor at Syracuse University. “As a matter of politics, it’s really, really difficult.” ___ Online: Tax Policy Center: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org National Taxpayer Advocate: http://www.irs.gov/advocate United for a Fair Economy: http://www.faireconomy.org

Read the full article →

Democracy Now!: Offshore Banking and Tax Havens Have Become the Heart of Global Economy

April 16, 2011

As millions of Americans prepare to file their income taxes ahead of Monday’s deadline, Democracy Now! interviews British journalist Nicholas Shaxson about how corporations and the wealthy use offshore banks and tax havens to avoid paying taxes and other governmental regulations. “Tax havens have grown so fast in the era of globalization, since the 1970s, that they are now right at the heart of the global economy and are absolutely huge,” Shaxson says. “There are anywhere between $10 and $20 trillion sitting offshore at the moment. Half of world trade is processed in one way or another through tax havens.” Shaxson is the author of the new book, Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens . Read the entire interview transcript Join us on Facebook and share with a friend!

Read the full article →

CHART: America’s Descending Marginal Tax Rates

April 15, 2011

By Catherine Mulbrandon VisualizingEconomics.com (Click picture to enlarge) Green line is the top marginal rate for married couples filing jointly (most years dividends were tax like ordinary income until 2003). Orange is the top rate for income from capital gains. The top corporate tax rate is included for comparison. Your marginal tax rate is the rate you pay on the “last dollar” you earn; but when you view the taxes you paid as a percentage of your income, your effective tax rate is less than your marginal rate, especially after you take into account the deductions and exemptions, i.e. income that is not subject to any tax. Over the years, changing the amount of taxes people pay was accomplished not just by changing rates but by changing the income limits of the tax brackets. Just looking at the top rates does not give the whole picture about who is paying taxes. Before the 1986 tax reform, the income tax had 15 brackets. In the 1930s, there were more than 50. The Wealth Tax Act of 1935, applied the top rate to income over $5 million and had only a single taxpayer: John D. Rockefeller, Jr. As the number of tax brackets decrease, the the top rate was applied to more people over the decades. Since 1987 the income tax brackets were combined so now more than a million people “qualify” for the top marginal rate. If you are interested here is the first 1040 form for 1913 . Tax Data: Married filing jointly , Capital Gains & Regular , Corporate Visualizing Economics is a website by Catherine Mulbrandon dedicated to publishing infographics about economic data. Visualizing Economics has been featured at Slate.com, NPR.org, WashingtonPost.com, The Big Picture, Seeking Alpha and on MSNBC Find more graphics explaining the U.S. economy at VisualizingEconomics.com

Read the full article →

Americans Feel Inflation That Fed Says Doesn’t Exist

April 8, 2011

NEW YORK (Daniel Trotta) – On the streets of America, the debate over inflation is over. Prices are too high and rising too fast, many people say. “The government says inflation is low, but that’s not what I’m seeing at the grocery story,” Jorge Alberto, an 88-year-old retiree in Miami, said walking out of a supermarket. “My pension is being put to the test.” Policy-makers at the U.S. Federal Reserve largely agree that promoting economic growth is still more urgent that constraining a nascent pick-up in consumer prices. They look beyond the volatile fuel and food prices that have pushed up inflation and focus instead on data showing little if any upward rise in wages, something they would see as the seed of a sustained and broad-based rise in prices. “I don’t think the Federal Reserve has a clue about us little people,” said J. McKeever, an instructor at the Montessori Institute of Milwaukee. “I am very frugal, so I watch what I spend. And what I have noticed in recent months is that I have less money before than I used to, while making the same amount of money and having to pay for health care,” she said. Across the country, Americans tell of a disconnect between the real economy they live in and the macroeconomic picture as described by economic indicators. Consumer prices rose 0.5 percent in February from January, and 2.1 percent over the previous year but the rates were half that when stripping out food and energy. “There are no salary increases and you know you have the pressure at work to cut, but on a personal level everything else keeps going up. You never seem to be able to catch up,” said Paty Peterson, 50, of suburban San Francisco. Policy-makers at the Fed must weigh how much the perception of inflation might trigger actual price increases. The worry would be if businesses pushed up prices to cover their rising costs and workers in turn demanded higher wages to cover theirs — which could spark a self-feeding cycle. Consumers’ inflation expectations rose briskly in March, according to the Thomson Reuters-University of Michigan survey. U.S. households are facing higher prices for staple products such as Tide laundry detergent and Hershey chocolate bars as cocoa, sugar, oil, wheat, corn and other commodity prices climb. Major consumer products makers have said in recent weeks that they will be raising prices including Procter & Gamble Co (PG.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), which said it would raise laundry detergent prices 4.5 percent in June. Kimberly-Clark Corp (KMB.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) is raising prices on diapers, baby wipes and toilet paper as much as 7 percent. “My grocery bill is up 30 percent over last year,” said Cheryl Holbrook, 47, who educates her seven children at home in Mobile, Alabama. “We have to pinch every little penny and make it squeak.” The Fed’s hawks, who stress the risks of inflation, have stepped up their argument that it may be time to wind down the central bank’s $2.3 trillion securities-buying program to stimulate the economy. So far, they have been out-argued by those who see recovery from the Great Recession as fragile and still in need of a boost. The European Central Bank, by contrast, on Thursday raised interest rates for the first time since 2008 to contain rising prices. If underlying prices rise, or an inflationary psychology starts to take hold, the Fed could change course. A recent Reuters poll found long-term expectations for the food and fuel prices that have pushed inflation higher in recent month are on the rise. Consumers meanwhile complain that food and gasoline consume too much of their income, forcing difficult decisions to stay within budgets. Eileen Reilly, 72, a retired resident of the Chicago suburb of Geneva, said higher gasoline and food prices have forced her to drive less, buy a cheaper food for her dog Lucky, and stop taking pills for a liver condition she declined to identify. “My doctor said I could die if I don’t take them,” Reilly said, rolling her eyes. “I told him that I’m 72 and I’ll be dead soon as it is. Besides, it was either the pills or the car and the dog. And I need the car and I love the dog.” (Reporting by Kevin Gray in Miami, Mark Felsenthal in Washington, Verna Gates in Birmingham, Alabama, Nick Carey in Chicago, Brad Dorfman in Chicago, John Rondy in Waukesha, Wisconsin, Peter Henderson in San Francisco) (Writing by Daniel Trotta) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Retail Sector Adding Jobs, But Not Always Careers

April 5, 2011

Erin Abell left a job in finance to volunteer for John McCain’s presidential campaign in early 2008. She had hoped to return to the industry after the election, but by then Wall Street was on life support, and Abell had to live off credit cards until joining a friend’s startup. So she started working part-time at Banana Republic to help cut her debts. Yet Abell was paid less at age 30 than she made in a retail job in her early 20s. She also says she had to promote high-interest credit cards and sometimes work until 1 a.m. “Management made it very clear they could replace you tomorrow,” Abell says. As the economic recovery gains steam, the retail industry is expected to be one of the strongest for job growth this decade. But the quality of jobs selling clothes, computers and other goods has declined in recent years to the point where few can be classified as careers. Erratic part-time hours often make a second job impossible and complicate the work-life juggle. Pay has shrunk. And the recession created hordes of overqualified job seekers, leaving existing staff with little power to demand better conditions. With unemployment still high at 8.8 percent, many people feel fortunate to land any job. But not all jobs contribute the same to economic growth. Employers may be hiring more, but they are hiring disproportionately in retail and other service-sector positions with low wages and few benefits. High-paying fields like real estate and finance accounted for 40 percent of the 8.8 million jobs lost from January 2008 to February 2010 but only 14 percent of the jobs created in the year that followed. Lower-paying industries like retail constituted 23 percent of jobs lost but almost half of the recent growth. This shift “could make it much harder for workers to find family-supporting jobs,” says Annette Bernhardt of the National Employment Law Project, who analyzed the data. Even in the “jobless recovery” after the 2001 recession, high-paying industries accounted for nearly one-third of new jobs in the year after the recession ended. Elizabeth Murphy, a recruiting manager for Crate & Barrel, says she’s receiving three times as many applications as she did a year and a half ago. The increase reflects, in part, a surge in applications from unemployed real-estate agents, accountants and other professionals. “In the past, college grads would say, `I won’t even talk to you if you’re paying less than this,’” Murphy says. Stores are under pressure to trim their expenses, and labor, the biggest expense after inventory, is one of the few costs they can control. In 2006, the median hourly wage for retail salespeople was $9.50, the government says. In 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available, that figure was $9.74 – a 4 percent drop after adjusting for inflation and more than $5 less than the U.S. median for all occupations. For full-time retail workers, the median annual wage was $20,510 – half made more, half less. That’s well below the federal poverty line for a family of four. The trend is evident in the broader economy. The government’s March unemployment report showed that after adjusting for inflation, wages are falling – one reason spending growth has been slow. Retail workers aren’t just teenagers seeking pocket money. Much of the industry’s work force depends on the income for their livelihood, says James Parrott, chief economist at the Fiscal Policy Institute. In New York City, for example, 78 percent of retail workers are 25 or older, and more than a third are their family’s sole provider, Parrott found. Three of the six occupations expected to grow the most by 2018 are customer-service representatives, food-service workers and retail salespeople, according to government data. Retail is expected to create twice as many positions as software and computer-application engineering. The sector’s largest employer, Walmart, already accounts for 1 percent of all U.S. workers. Critics, though, say the company skimps on pay. Last year, Ohio state Rep. Robert Hagan, a Democrat, calculated that Buckeye State taxpayers spend roughly $67 million a year on food stamps and Medicaid for Walmart employees. Spokesman Bill Wertz says the store offers competitive wages and benefits and every day “helps people move off unemployment rolls.” At Walmart and across the country, retail workers are finding it harder to get by, especially lately, because of higher food and gas prices. Connor Skyggen, a recent college graduate who worked full-time in a Macy’s jewelry department last year, says his average take-home pay was $240 a week. He had to spend some of that on suits, pressed shirts and shoe shines to meet the dress code. On what was left, “it’s really hard to support yourself,” he says. Not every retail employee is struggling. At Nordstrom Inc. stores, commissioned salespeople are highly trained, and top performers earn six figures, says spokesman Colin Johnson. But electronics stores that offer workers a cut of sales, like hhgregg and P.C. Richard & Son, have had to lower prices to compete with Amazon.com, squeezing staffers’ take-home pay. “As electronic goods essentially turn into commodities, the commission model is not viable,” says Chris Tilly, who directs the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. The Internet has armed consumers with so much price and product information that stores now need salespeople more to sell extended warranties than to explain how products work. Advances in technology have helped stores optimize workers’ schedules, too, so they have more workers on duty during peak sales times without being overstaffed during lulls. But one consequence is inconsistent work schedules for the employees. And workers complain that computers don’t weigh factors like seniority or a lengthy commute. Sheena Dixon, 26, a former theft-prevention manager at a Target in New York, said her store “used scheduling as a weapon,” shuffling hours so it was difficult to take a second job or make personal plans. If the store called on a day off and you declined to come in, your hours were slashed, she says. Dixon left the company in January to pursue a real estate career. Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder says scheduling was “thoughtfully crafted to provide flexibility for our team members and excellent service to our guests.” High-turnover work forces mean retailers must spend money to recruit and train. Yet those expenses pale compared with the cost of providing benefits, analysts say. The new federal law meant to expand health insurance coverage could make full-time hours even harder to get. Companies will be penalized for not providing insurance – but only for employees who work at least 30 hours. Securing a promotion, meanwhile, is already a challenge. When Caitlin Kelly’s newspaper laid her off, there were few job options for a 50-year-old reporter. So in August 2007 she took a part-time job at a North Face store in suburban New York. Kelly says she consistently beat her sales targets and regular customers asked for her by name. But when an assistant manager position opened up, she says, she was denied an interview. Some stores prefer not to promote from within, believing homegrown managers won’t command as much respect from sales-floor workers, says Nikki Baird, an analyst at retail research company RSR. To move up, you often have to be willing to move. What Kelly found most dispiriting, as she writes in her forthcoming book, “Malled,” is that no one ever solicited ideas from her or other staffers. “The people on the sales floor have tremendous knowledge, but the company presupposed we’re stupid,” Kelly says. “I would know the minute I unpacked a box whether (it) was going to sell.” The North Face, which sells outdoor gear like all-weather jackets and backpacks, declined to comment. Analysts say overlooked staffers are a problem endemic to the field. Retailers track each purchase to guide marketing and inventory. Yet they make little effort to determine why some staffers are more productive. At most companies surveyed by the National Retail Federation last year, customer-service scores didn’t affect sales associates’ pay. “Better-performing associates drive sales,” Baird says. “But it’s hard to do that analysis to say, `Sales were up this week because we had all our A players.’ ”

Read the full article →

One In Four Working Baby Boomers Say They’ll Never Retire, Survey Finds

April 5, 2011

WASHINGTON — Baby boomers are starting to retire, but many are agonizing about their finances and believe they’ll need to work longer than they had planned, a new poll finds. The 77 million-strong generation born between 1946 and 1964 has clung tenaciously to its youth. Now, boomers are getting nervous about retirement. Only 11 percent say they are strongly convinced they will be able to live in comfort. A total of 55 percent said they were either somewhat or very certain they could retire with financial security. But another 44 percent express little or no faith they’ll have enough money when their careers end. Further underscoring the financial squeeze, 1 in 4 boomers still working say they’ll never retire. That’s about the same number as those who say they have no retirement savings. The Associated Press-LifeGoesStrong.com poll comes as politicians face growing pressure to curb record federal deficits, and budget hawks of both parties have expressed a willingness to scale back Social Security, the government’s biggest program. The survey suggests how politically risky that would be: 64 percent of boomers see Social Security as the keystone of their retirement earnings, far outpacing pensions, investments and other income. The survey also highlights the particular retirement challenge facing boomers, who are contemplating exiting the work force just as the worst economy in seven decades left them coping with high jobless rates, tattered home values and painfully low interest rates that stunt the growth of savings. “I have six kids,” said Gary Marshalek, 62, of South Abington Township, Pa., who services drilling equipment and says he has repeatedly refinanced his home and dipped into his pension to pay for his children’s college. His inability to afford retirement “sounds like America at the moment,” Marshalek said. “Sounds like the normal instead of the abnormal.” Marshalek was among the 25 percent in the poll who say they plan to never retire. People who are unmarried, earn under $50,000 a year, or say they did a poor job of financial planning are disproportionately represented among that group. Overall, nearly 6 in 10 baby boomers say their workplace retirement plans, personal investments or real estate lost value during the economic crisis of the past three years. Of this group, 42 percent say they’ll have to delay retirement because their nest eggs shrank. Though the first boomers are turning 65 this year, the poll finds that 28 percent already consider themselves retired. Of those still working, nearly half want to retire by age 65 and about another quarter envision retiring between 66 and 70. Two-thirds of those still on the job say they will keep working after they retire, a plan shared about evenly across sex, marital status and education lines, the survey finds. That contrasts with the latest Social Security Administration data on what older people are actually doing: Among those age 65-74, less than half earned income from a job in 2008. “I’m going to keep working after I retire, if nothing else for the health care,” said Nadine Krieger, 58, a food plant worker from East Berlin, Pa. Citing $50,000 in retirement savings that she says won’t go far, she added, “We probably could have saved more, but you can’t when you have a couple of kids in the house.” About 6 in 10 married boomers expect a comfortable retirement, compared with just under half of the unmarried. Midwesterners are most likely to express confidence in their finances. “I’m a good planner,” said Robert Rivers, 63, a retired New York State employee in Ravena, N.Y. He still works seasonally for the federal government and collects a modest military pension. A recreational pilot, he says he has scaled back his lifestyle by flying and driving less. “I’m spending money I have, not spending it and trying to repay it,” he said. Among boomers like Rivers who plan to continue working in retirement, 35 percent say they’ll do so to make ends meet. Slightly fewer cite a desire to earn money for extras or to simply stay busy. Excluding their homes, 24 percent of boomers say they have no retirement savings. Those with nothing include about 4 in 10 who are non-white, are unmarried or didn’t finish college. At the other end, about 1 in 10 say they have banked at least $500,000. Those who have saved at least something typically have squirreled away $100,000, with about half putting away more than that and half less. Despite the worries and dearth of savings cited by many, only about a third of boomers say it’s likely that they’ll have to make do with a more modest lifestyle once they retire. Only about 1 in 4 expect to struggle just to pay their expenses. Financial experts say such expectations are often not realistic. “Most families have to make a significant adjustment from their working lives to their retirement years,” said financial planner Sheryl Garrett, who runs the Garrett Planning Network. Ads that show silver-haired couples strolling off into the sunset do not represent the typical retirement, she added. The AP-LifeGoesStrong.com poll was conducted from March 4-13 by Knowledge Networks of Menlo Park, Calif., and involved online interviews with 1,160 baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Knowledge Networks used traditional telephone and mail sampling methods to randomly recruit respondents. People selected who had no Internet access were given it for free. ___ AP Polling Director Trevor Tompson, Deputy Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report. ___ Online: Array

Read the full article →

Carl Davis: The Millionaire Migration Myth: Don’t Fall for This Anti-Tax Scare Tactic

April 1, 2011

Virtually every state in the country has a tax system that heavily favors the rich. Despite this fact, only a handful of states responded to the revenue slump brought on by the Great Recession with any sort of tax increase on this favored group. What gives? With so many states looking for ways to balance their budgets, why isn’t there more interest in finally making the rich pay their fair share? The answer lies partially in one of the most effective, yet most absurd anti-tax scare tactics to be used in recent memory: the so-called “millionaire migration” epidemic. State lawmakers across the country have heard again and again that wealthy taxpayers will pull up stakes and move in response to just about any progressive state tax increase. In most cases, however, even a cursory look at the facts shows that these fears are unjustified. With tax day nearly upon us once again, let’s take just a moment to make those facts known. In New York, it was a business-backed group called the Partnership for New York City that first began spreading misinformation about the state’s income tax surcharge on the rich. In a February report , the Partnership claimed that “New York’s high taxes risk pushing jobs, tax revenue, and talent to neighboring states. …Since the imposition of New York’s surcharge in 2009, there has been a 9.4% decrease in the state’s taxpayers who are worth $1 million or more, decreasing from 381,786 in 2007 to 345,892 in 2009.” That sounds pretty scary, but the same data used by the Partnership shows that every state in the country saw its millionaire population decline between 2007 and 2009, and that a whopping forty-three states experienced declines exceeding New York’s 9.4 percent drop. Apologies for stating the obvious, but these declines were a predictable result of the recent recession. Making matters worse, the original press release accompanying this data made very clear that the U.S. as a whole saw its millionaire population decline by nearly 14 percent between 2007 and 2009. It’s therefore a little strange, to say the least, that the Partnership would interpret New York’s 9.4 percent drop as providing any evidence whatsoever that could be useful in its crusade against taxing high-income earners. Oregonians also had to listen to their share of uninformed anti-tax nonsense during the course of the last few months — this time coming from pundits living clear on the other side of the country. In December of last year the Wall Street Journal ‘s editorial board suggested that a recent voter-approved income tax increase on upper-income families caused up to 10,000 Oregonians to pack their bags and head to Texas. Their “evidence” in support of this claim? 10,000 fewer taxpayers were affected by the tax increase than the state originally expected. Of course, there’s at least one other perfectly reasonable explanation for why fewer Oregonians would be affected: the recession lowered their incomes enough to bring them beneath the starting point for the new tax brackets (only taxpayers earning more than $125,000 – or $250,000 in the case of married couples — were affected by the tax increase). Unfortunately for the Journal , the data strongly suggest that this is the case. After just a quick glance at the data, my group — the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) — found that while the state’s revenue estimators overestimated the size of Oregon’s “rich” population by roughly 34,000, it also underestimated its middle- and low-income population by more than 60,000. Simply put, some 26,000 more Oregonians filed tax returns than the state originally expected. They just earned less income than usual due to the weak economic climate. What makes this story especially troubling is that, as in New York, there was very clear evidence available refuting the Journal ‘s claims — had anyone there taken the time to look for it. Almost a full week before the Journal ‘s piece was published, the Oregon House Revenue Committee held a hearing in conjunction with the release of the new data at issue. As is usually the case, that hearing gave the state’s revenue estimators an opportunity to offer some very useful context , such as the fact that the 10,000 return discrepancy was due to taxpayers being “driven down the income distribution because [of lower than expected capital gains income], and they [moved] from the affected category to the unaffected categories.” No discussion of millionaire migration would be complete without a look back at the debacle in Maryland. Thanks in no small part to a pair of misleading editorials published by the Wall Street Journal , Maryland’s legislature failed to approve legislation early last year that would have extended its temporary tax bracket on incomes over $1 million. Since then, much of the hubbub surrounding the Maryland “millionaires’ tax” has died down, but the effect that the Journal ‘s misinformation campaign had on shaping the conventional wisdom on “millionaire migration” makes the issue worth revisiting. As in New York and Oregon, the question in Maryland revolved around whether high-income taxpayers were migrating or simply becoming less rich. When the Maryland Comptroller released data showing a roughly 30% drop in millionaire filers between 2007 and 2008 (the year Maryland’s “millionaires’ tax” first took effect), the Journal enthusiastically seized on this figure as proof that the “redistributionists” and “class warriors” had failed in their scheme to “soak the rich.” To its credit, the Journal did exercise a modicum of caution in its first two editorials by reminding its readers that much of this decline was due to the recession, though it continued to insist that the “millionaires’ tax” just had to have something to do with this drop as well. ITEP responded to the Journal in multiple reports and an unpublished letter to the editor explaining that more detailed data, provided by the Comptroller’s office upon request, indeed confirmed that the vast majority of “migrating” millionaires had simply moved to a lower tax bracket. Fast forward to last December when the Journal revived the Maryland migration myth in the context of Oregon. This time, the Journal threw caution to the wind and stated flatly that “one-third of [Maryland's] millionaire households vanished from the tax rolls after [tax] rates went up.” Of course, this flew in the face of its published claim from nine months earlier that: “one-in-eight millionaires who filed a Maryland tax return in 2007 filed no return in 2008.” But that was back before the Journal forgot about the recession. (For the record: even the “one-in-eight” figure was an exaggeration .) In all three of these states — New York, Oregon, and Maryland — the anti-tax crowd ignored a lot of fairly obvious evidence running counter to their claims. Unfortunately, that’s the way it’s been whenever the “millionaire migration” issue has made its way into statehouse debates. Any shred of “evidence,” no matter how meaningless or out of context, has been seized upon by those seeking to construct the anti-tax, vote-with-your-feet narrative they desperately wish was true. With so much bad information floating around, it’s not surprising that most states have been reluctant to eliminate the massive preferences for the wealthy built into their tax systems. But what lawmakers need to know — and what the Wall Street Journal and others have been refusing to tell them — is that once you scratch the surface of the millionaire migration issue, it becomes abundantly clear that the anti-tax side’s claims have no substance. It’s long past time to stop letting the millionaire migration myth get in the way of progressive tax reform.

Read the full article →

Edward D. Kleinbard: The Global Tax Avoidance Dance

March 31, 2011

America’s most successful multinationals make great products and offer superior services. But they have another, less enviable quality in common — they have become world leaders in tax avoidance. General Electric’s global effective tax rate for 2010 was 7.4% . Pfizer’s was 11.9% ; Cisco came in at 17.5% . The nominal U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%. Each company has its own tax story, but all — like other multinationals — have for years relied heavily on low-taxed foreign income to drive down their worldwide tax obligations, including those of their U.S. businesses. American multinationals claim they are taxed on their worldwide income, but in reality the “active” income they earn through foreign subsidiaries is not taxed in this country until the cash is repatriated. In addition, financial accounting practices (the lens through which we view these firms because their tax returns are not public) permit a company not to book any U.S. tax liability on foreign earnings if the firm states that the income is “indefinitely invested” abroad. General Electric has $94 billion in indefinitely reinvested earnings. The total for corporate America is more than $1 trillion. 
 If the story was simply that U.S. firms have successfully expanded into international markets and are paying taxes abroad at lower rates, one could argue that there is no U.S. tax mischief afoot. But these are not the facts. Tax collectors in the U.S. and in high-tax foreign countries are the direct victims of the tax avoidance, but we all suffer from the resulting budget deficits and distorted investment decisions that firms make as a result of their ability to generate what I call “stateless income” — income derived from selling goods and services in a high-tax country but that, through internal tax legerdemain, surfaces in a low-taxed affiliate. What’s going on is a highly choreographed six-step dance. Step 1: U.S. firms rely on aggressive “transfer pricing” to sell, at bargain prices, high-profit U.S. assets or business opportunities to their low-taxed foreign subsidiaries in countries like Ireland. It cannot be simply the luck of the Irish that explains the extraordinary profitability of the Irish subsidiaries of U.S. firms relative to their European sister companies. Step 2: U.S. multinationals move income from higher-tax foreign countries, where their customers actually are located, to lower-taxed ones not only through transfer pricing but also through “earnings stripping.” For example, a corporation funds its German subsidiary with loans secured in Ireland, so the interest is deductible in Germany. Step 3: Not satisfied with low corporate tax rates in Ireland (12.5%) or in other countries, U.S. firms set up exotic internal funding structures — with such names as “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” — to shift income from these countries to zero-tax havens like Bermuda. Step 4: Firms arbitrage what remains of their U.S. tax base by parking their global external-debt financing here, which creates interest deductions to shield their U.S. income. They then overstuff their low-taxed foreign subsidiaries with equity capital. Step 5: Having put their stateless-income generating machines in motion, U.S. firms let their ultra-low-taxed foreign income accumulate abroad. Microsoft, for example, has accumulated $29.5 billion in offshore indefinitely reinvested earnings. Its financial statements suggest that its effective foreign tax rate from selling its products and services to customers located primarily in populous and relatively high-tax countries is in the neighborhood of 4%. Step 6: With more than $1 trillion in low-taxed earnings offshore, the firms complain to Congress that U.S. tax law impedes their ability to reinvest their foreign earnings back home because they have not yet paid U.S. taxes on them. They demand a special tax holiday from Congress so they can complete the circle and repatriate all those earnings at nominal cost. All this tax engineering has yielded tax burdens that bear no relationship to tax rates in the United States or in the populous foreign countries where the firms actually have personnel, real investment and customers. It’s true that the U.S. corporate tax rate, at 35%, is too high relative to its economic peers, about 28% on average. ( Click here for data on the 31 member states of the OECD; the 28% figure is an unweighted average of the larger OECD members. Click here for the “BRICs” and other non-OECD countries.) But the solution is not to reward U.S. multinationals for concocting and implementing worldwide tax-minimization schemes. The only feasible solution is to lower the U.S. rate to a level comparable with global norms and to pay for the reduction in part by introducing worldwide tax consolidation for U.S. firms, just as they today consolidate their worldwide operations for financial accounting purposes. Edward D. Kleinbard, a professor of law at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, is former chief of staff of the U.S. Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation. The facts and arguments in this piece are abstracted from two recent papers authored by Prof. Kleinbard: Stateless Income and The Lessons of Stateless Income . 




Read the full article →

Robert Teitelman: Brazil, America and the Realities of Private Equity

March 30, 2011

The New York Times ‘ Andrew Ross Sorkin pops up Tuesday, Day 2 in the Times ‘ Era of the Paywall, in São Paulo, Brazil, where he’s discovered the country’s booming buyout business, which, he tells us over and over again, uses no leverage. I should italicize that: They use no leverage . This he views as not only virtuous, but a kind of rebuke to the American and European private equity industry, which he defines as a band of financial engineering megamaestros who “pursue elephant-sized deals,” ignoring, unlike the Brazilians, smaller, family-owned companies that can be tuned up and provided growth capital to expand and make everyone happy without leverage . Indeed, Sorkin argues that these virtuous Brazilians are more akin to “what the fledgling private equity industry circa the 1970s in the United States pursued.” That is, before they became greedy barbarians in the ’80s. Now, in fact, Sorkin’s report from Brazil does cast a light on an interesting growth story — and one, as he suggests, that has attracted the acquisitive attention of major U.S. players, like Blackstone Group, which last year took a stake in one of the leading lights in Brazil, Pátria, and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which took a majority stake in another, Gávea. But Sorkin is so intent on confirming the cartoon version of private equity, which the Times has had a hand in creating, that he ends up all over the place. Begin with Brazil, which is growing rapidly and is attracting lots of international flows of capital — enough that the country, which has had an historical tendency to boom and bust, has tried desperately to control. Buyouts in Brazil are quite recent, and the industry, compared to Europe and the U.S., is still immature. For all its recent successes, Brazil is just developing the kind of capital markets that can support larger buyout efforts. As a result it’s the kind of situation financial types just love: very little competition, large numbers of targets, a general lack of transparency, big fat profits. As Sorkin’s own sources explain, lending rates are high, and so they’re forced to use no leverage (or little leverage) and seek out opportunities where they can make a big difference by injecting some capital or providing some expertise. If rates fell, they would rush to use leverage. But by then competition will have increased, and the game will have grown tougher. As Arminio Fraga, the founder of Gávea told Sorkin at the very end of the column, “There will be more leverage for sure. Hopefully, we won’t do anything too stupid when the opportunity becomes real.” So much for virtue. If Sorkin overpraises Brazil, he presents a picture of U.S. private equity that’s simply bizarre. Sorkin still seems to be fixated on the 2005 to 2007 era of megabuyouts, when the largest private equity firms grabbed huge corporate assets like Freescale, First Data, TXU, HCA and a dozen others. They used leverage, and that leverage in some cases caused problems when credit froze. Sometimes they banded together in consortiums. In that bubble era of abundant liquidity, leverage was easy, terms loose and financial engineering rife. But there are two points to be made about that era that Sorkin ignores. That era (for now) is over. And simply to characterize U.S. private equity as a bunch of big operators looking to snare “elephant-sized” corporate assets is a distortion of reality. This is not an apology for U.S. private equity, which, in Fraga’s phrase, will engage in stupid deals when opportunity beckons — perhaps sooner than we wish. But most private equity in the U.S. takes place in the middle market, despite the fact that the Times tries to pretend that only Blackstone, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Carlyle matter. Just last week was the annual “InterGrowth” meeting of the Association for Corporate Growth, an organization of middle-market players including corporates, lenders, advisers and investors. This is no small show: Well over 2,000 blazered dealmakers milled around a fancy hotel in San Diego, networking like mad. A large number of them engage in private equity throughout the middle market. Most of them have personal relations with smaller companies, many of which are family owned — just like those in Brazil. Many middle-market deals also get done with less leverage than, say, a megabuyout. Indeed, the ’70s still lives in middle-market buyouts (truth be told, a lot of the big buyout shops have an awful lot of operational expertise; the charge of financial wizardry is overstated in “normal” markets). But unlike Brazil, there is plenty of competition in the U.S. middle market. Many of these firms are sizable, and the scale is striking. We at The Deal are currently building a national database of these folks called City by City (see here for the first four cities); the infrastructure is both impressively dense and extensive. And arguably what makes it go is the stimulus of private equity. There’s a larger point here in how blithely Sorkin sweeps the middle market away. Politicians talk continually about how “small business,” which really means the middle market, leads the way to job creation in America (usually as a prelude to a tax-cut argument). But like the Times , political attention on the national level is nearly always focused on the largest corporations and, particularly when the economy sours, the transgressions of the largest buyout shops. Generally, the middle market is ignored. For that reason, our own Matt Miller attempted in the March 14 issue of The Deal magazine to try to get a sense of its scale. The cartoon that results thus emphasizes the largest firms at their darkest moments and ignores the rest. Brazil, in terms of private equity, may be just beginning its takeoff. Firms like Gávea and Pátria may be the KKRs and Blackstones of that country, if the country can stay aloft. But as these firms grow, as the market matures, more competitors will fill in behind them, reaching further into the Brazilian commercial establishment. Competition will increase, but financing will ease. They will use leverage. They will lose their virtue. It’s just the way things are. Blame the Brits. In 1942, in the midst of world conflagration, the Brits went squishy. Sir William Beveridge, a member of Churchill’s wartime government (he actually worked for Labour Minister Ernest Bevin, who wanted to get rid of him because he thought he was conceited), published a long, turgid report with revolutionary implications: “Social Insurance and Allied Services.” This wasn’t the first social welfare scheme proposed — Bismarck tried one in Germany in the 1880s — but it kicked off a broad move toward what’s derided by conservatives as socialism. In 1945, the newly elected Labour Party took Beveridge’s plan and launched National Health and other social welfare schemes. America was close behind. The New Deal had passed Social Security in 1935. After debate in which business groups declared it “utterly alien to America and her institutions,” Congress passed the Employment Act of 1946 (dropping “Full” in a compromise), which made the federal government responsible for generating jobs and monetary stability. If Beveridge was a conceited Brit who designed social welfare aspects of this state expansion, John Maynard Keynes, genius, provided the theoretical underpinnings. This was social welfare enabled by cutting-edge economics. Both plans represented a remarkable admission, new to history. A primary function of the state was to improve the lot of its people. What provoked this? Many linked the Great Depression to Nazism and economists were predicting the slump’s return. The war required mass mobilization; now those masses demanded recompense. Meanwhile, a vanguard of economists believed Keynes had found a way to regulate economic perturbations, though it’s doubtful, for all his self-regard, that the great man himself would have been so certain. This policy of “compensatory finance” attracted bipartisan support for decades; Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower and that Keynesian Richard Nixon were fully onboard. In 1965, Congress passed Medicare and Medicaid; in 1976, a bill combining “Full” and “Employment” finally passed. All this made the Greatest Generation the most “socialist” in American history. Why not? The economy boomed in the ’50s and ’60s, with little overseas competition. And demography helped. The population was young — baby boomers were mastering credit cards — industrial jobs, many unionized, were rife, income inequality was low, tax rates high. Taxes were not yet considered theft. Then we lost it. The erosion of faith in government had many sources, particularly in a nation with a tradition of Jeffersonian do-your-own-thingism. Besides, the rest of the world, first Europe and Japan, then Brazil, India, China and South Korea, woke up. The industrial age became post-industrial. Globalization advanced. We aged. Shadows fell upon our sunny self-regard. After its first successes, Keynesian management got rocked by ’70s stagflation. The full-employment mission persisted (it’s still rhetorically sacred), but faith in markets replaced confidence in government. This proved to be a rickety faith. In 1974 Congress passed the Employment Retirement Income Security Act to regulate private pensions, mostly defined-benefit plans. Less than a decade later, the situation began to change, based on a loophole in Erisa: Companies replaced DB plans with defined-contribution plans, like 401(k)s, dumping investing on workers. This occurred quietly, privately, without legislation or debate, then mushroomed. There were many rationales for this, including giving employees ownership, but the real motive was more prosaic: DB plans were expensive for corporations increasingly defined by share price. True, hiring money managers wasn’t cheap. But more significantly, companies found investing, well, difficult. Recessions. Meltdowns. Wars. When they missed targets, they had to top up plans, often when they could least afford it. So they palmed it off on workers, most of whom had no investing skills to speak of, and insisted breezily that long-term, equity markets generally rose. Note the “generally.” This was widely accepted as plausible until 2001. Then came 2008. The last big holdout of DB plans are underfunded public pensions, which are now poised to make the same forced march to 401(k)s, among more draconian givebacks, like killing collective bargaining. The arguments for this move are a) familiar (too expensive) and b) novel (everybody else is screwed, no exceptions for you). Indeed, after a decade of stocks treading water, the equities-always-rise argument has been battered, particularly for retiring baby boomers. What all this shows is that the market as foolproof social welfare tool is no more reliable than Keynesian-style economic wizardry. This produces a queasy realization 65 years after the Employment Act: As confidence in our ability to ensure long-term prosperity wavers — perhaps needlessly; we are prone to hysteria — the belief that a function of government is to broadly improve lives for everyone deflates. What’s next? Malthus? Robert Teitelman is editor in chief of The Deal. For more from Robert Teitelman, check out The Deal Economy.

Read the full article →

Miles Mogulescu: GE: "Imagination at Work" in Building the Corporate State

March 30, 2011

I was watching Meet the Press on Sunday as a panel of Washington insiders offered a variety of views from across the political spectrum ranging from A to B. Halfway through the program an authoritative-sounding voice interjected itself into the proceedings to announce, “Meet the Press is Sponsored by GE: Imagination at Work” while a GE “Imagination at Work” logo filled the screen. And I thought, there you have it: The perfect embodiment of the emerging corporate state in which discussion of our economics and politics is dominated by a handful of multinational conglomerates; the middle class is hollowed out; wealth is concentrated in the top 1% who pay a lower and lower percentage of their personal and corporate income in taxes as the government is increasingly unable to afford basic services like public schools; political leaders blame teachers and unions for our financial plight and undermine collective bargaining; corporate functionaries rotate between business and government; corporations can make unlimited donations to political candidates who advance their interests; and the Washington pundit class calls on politicians to have the “courage” to cut Social Security and Medicare because “America is broke and we can no longer afford it”. GE : You may think they’re the guys who ” bring good things to life ” by manufacturing refrigerators and washing machines in American factories, paying living union wages and benefits, and selling affordable appliances to American consumers. But that was yesterday; this is today. Today, less than 6% of GE’s revenues come from its consumer appliance division. GE’s main businesses are global finance, media, energy, defense contracting, and lobbying the government for tax breaks and subsidies. GE is incorporated in New York and its worldwide headquarters are at 30 Rockefeller Plaza (“30 Rock”) where every Christmas they’re kind enough to display quite a lovely tree for the public to enjoy. But its wealthy top executives, like those of many American-based global corporations, are increasingly untethered from any interest in the economic and social well being of America as a whole. Here’s a snapshot of some of GE’s global businesses: • GE Media : Not only does GE sponsor Meet the Press , which is highly influential in setting the policy agenda in Washington. It owns 49% of NBC Universal whose media assets include not only the NBC TV network (including NBC News) and local stations in America’s largest cities, but Universal Studios (one of the 5 major US film studios), Telemundo, which is the second largest Spanish language TV network in the US, and such cable networks as Bravo, CNBC, MSNBC, SyFy, USA Network, the Weather Channel, and (in partnership with Hearst and Disney/ABC) A&E, the Biography Channel, the History Channel, and Lifetime, along with television networks in other countries around the world. There’s hardly an area of the motion picture, television, and TV news business where GE doesn’t own a substantial stake. • GE Financial Services : GE’s financial arm, GE Capital, is responsible for 30% of GE’s revenues and more than half its profits . If it were classified as a bank, GE would be the 7th largest bank in America. As the New York Times put it, “many Wall Street analysts view G.E. not as a manufacturer but as an unregulated lender that also makes dishwashers and M.R. I. machines.” Since GE is not classified as a bank, it manages to avoid most of the regulation that applies to banks. Nevertheless, during the 2008 financial crisis, GE deployed a team of top lobbyists (GE spent nearly $40 million in lobbying last year) to convince the federal government to allow it to exploit a loophole ( it owns two small Utah savings and loans ) to become one of the largest recipients of Federal bank bailout funds. Unlike other banks like Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Citigroup, it didn’t take the bailout funds through TARP and thus wasn’t subject to TARP restrictions, such as limits on executive compensation — in 2010, GE CEO and Obama economic advisor Jeffrey Immelt made $15.2 million. Rather it took the bailout funds in the form of $139 billion in Federal guarantees of GE Capital debt under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) , nearly 25% of the total federal funds provided under the program. The Federal guarantees expires in 2012, a date known in banking circles as “the cliff”, since at that time the Federal government will have to make good on the debt if GE and other borrowers don’t honor their obligations. But despite the fact that a large part of GE’s profits are due to financial support from the Federal government, and the Feds are liable for a big part of GE’s debts, GE pays not a single dollar in Federal taxes. • GE Energy : The GE Energy Infrastructure unit of GE is made up of 3 GE companies, GE Energy, GE Oil & Gas and GE Water Process Technologies. While GE is developing a large solar energy business in the hopes of taking advantage of government-subsidized financing, and has launched its “Ecomagination” ad campaign in the hope of marketing itself as a green company, it has a record as one of the largest corporate polluters. Using EPA data, the Political Economy Research Institute found that GE is the 4th biggest producer of air pollution in the US. According to the EPA , only the US government, Honeywell and Chevron produce more Superfund toxic waste sites. But most striking, GE designed and built one of the six nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan that is now spewing radiaton, and built two of the others in partnership with Toshiba. These Japanese nuclear plants are based on GE’s Mark 1 boiling-water reactor designs that were marketed by GE as cheaper and easier to build than other designs. But according to the New York Times , “it has long been thought to be more susceptible to failure in an emergency than competing designs.” GE, it brings good things to life. • GE Defense Contracting : GE is a key member of the military/industrial complex which, according to its own reports, in 2009 sold over $5 billion in military products both to the United States and foreign governments, including engines for naval vessels and military aircraft such as fighters, tankers, helicopters, surveillance aircraft and bombers. Among other things, GE provides alternative engines for the F-15 Fighter jets, one of which, costing $30 million, was shot down over Libya last week. Naturally, the nearly $40 million dollars a year GE spends on lobbying seeks to protect Federal spending on GE-manufactured armaments and doesn’t suggest lowering the deficit by cutting America’s defense spending which nearly equals the aggregate total defense spending of every other country in the world combined. • GE Lobbying and Tax Avoidance Divisions : While not officially operating divisions, GE’s tax avoidance, lobbying, and political contribution operations may effectively be among the most profitable areas of the GE empire. According to an investigative report in last week’s New York Times , in 2010 GE reported $14.2 billion in worldwide profits, including $5.1 billion from US operations, but GE owed exactly $0 dollars in Federal taxes. In fact it claimed a tax benefit from Uncle Sam of $3.2 billion. Over the past 5 years, GE has accumulated $26 billion in American profits, yet received $4.1 billion in net Federal tax benefits. Yet contradicting Republican political claims that cutting tax on corporations and the wealthy creates American jobs, since 2002, GE has eliminated 20% of its US work force while expanding job creation overseas. According to the Times : It’s extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax laws firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan ‘Imagination at Work’ fits this department well. The team includes officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress…Over the last decade, G.E. has spent tens of millions of dollars to push for changes in tax law. It’s a classic example of how the modern corporate state operates. Moderately paid employees at government regulatory agencies and key congressional committees aspire to lucrative jobs at GE and other major corporations when they retire from government if they write regulations and laws which enhance corporate profits. Corporations then rotate some of their employees back for new stints in government service where they insure rules and laws favorable to the corporations. According to the Center for Responsive Politics , GE spent nearly $40 million in lobbying in 2010 (over $200 million in the past decade) and contributed $2,230,270 to Republican and Democratic House and Senate candidates in 2010. This doesn’t count things like an $11 million donation from GE’s foundation to schools in the district of Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel, then Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which “coincidentally” came a month after Rangel reversed his position to support continuation of a tax break which, according to a regulatory filing, had saved GE more than $1 billion on US taxes in the 3 years after it was enacted. And it doesn’t include perhaps GE’s biggest political coup of all, President Obama appointing GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt — the man who presided over GE’s success in avoiding taxes and eliminating American jobs — to replace Paul Volcker as head of Obama’s panel of economic advisers, the newly renamed President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. It’s the ultimate case of regulatory capture in which the industries being regulated by the government come to dominate the agencies charged with regulating them. This time it’s the White House itself. The man who presided over GE’s success in avoiding American taxes on its $14.2 billion in profits and in eliminating 20% of its American workforce gets to advise the president on how to rebuild the economy and create American jobs. (Hint: I don’t think it will include raising taxes on the rich, reducing military spending, strengthening regulation of business, or increasing worker rights.) So there you have GE’s “imagination at work” . A bank that’s not a bank but gets over $100 billion in Federal bank bailout loan guarantees. An energy company that builds the nuclear reactors that are radiating people in Japan. A major defense contractor that profits from America’s wars. A media company that owns TV networks, movie studios and major news operations. A political lobbyist and campaign donor whose executives rotate between business and government and back again and create loopholes that allows the largest corporation in the world to pay no taxes. A corporation whose $15 million a year CEO is appointed by President Obama to be his chief advisor on creating jobs. It’s the very definition of the corporate state at work. Fighting back to protect democratic rights and the income and economic security of the middle class is in some ways a more complicated in an ostensibly democratic, but increasingly corporate-run, country like the United States than it is more directly authoritarian societies like those in the Middle East. But we have no choice but to fight back if America is to continue as a broadly middle class nation where most people can realistically hope that their children will live a better life than they do. The protests sparked by Republican overreaching on behalf of corporations in states like Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan may be the beginning of a movement to reclaim America’s middle class dream. This past weekend, 250,000-400,000 people marched in London to protest the conservative government’s draconian cuts in social services and the failure of some of Britain’s largest corporation to pay a fair share of taxes. It’s vital that the movement they began cross the Atlantic Perhaps a good next step in America would be a well-organized boycott of GE, accompanied by mass demonstrations at GE headquarters and sales outlets, to make GE the poster child for corporate greed in response to its failure to pay US taxes on its billions in profits while exporting jobs overseas. It wouldn’t, by itself, stop GE. But it might focus the country on the manifest injustices wrought by companies like GE and encourage the emergence of a progressive Tea Party-type movement against the power of the growing corporate state.

Read the full article →

Dean Baker: The Deficit Hawks Target Nurses and Firefighters

March 29, 2011

Many people might think that the country’s problems stem from the fact that too much money has been going to the very rich. Over the last three decades, the richest one percent of the population has increased its share of national income by almost 10 percentage points (Excel spreadsheet). This comes to $1.5 trillion a year, or as the deficit hawks are fond of saying, $90 trillion over the next 75 years. To put this in context, the size of this upward redistribution to the richest one percent over the last three decades is roughly large enough to double the income of all the households in the bottom half of the income distribution. The upward redistribution amounts to an average of more than 1.2 million dollars a year for each of the families in the richest one percent of the population. And this upward redistribution was brought about by deliberate policy. We pursued a trade and high dollar policy that was intended to put downward pressure on the wages of manufacturing workers. The Federal Reserve Board deliberately kept unemployment higher than necessary in order to weaken workers bargaining power. We extended patent monopolies to allow drug companies to jack up prices, raking in hundreds of billions a year. And, we gave the Wall Street banks the benefit of “too big to fail” status so they can borrow with a government subsidy. These policies and others fueled this enormous upward redistribution. But the deficit hawks don’t want us talking about any of these things. The deficit hawks insist that we have to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits now! They are busy hyperventilating over the enormous deficits, the result of the economic collapse, which was in turn the result of their economic mismanagement. (Wait, we are not supposed to talk about that.) And the deficit hawks have clear ideas on how they want to deal with the costs of Social Security and Medicare over coming decades. And, it does not involve taking money from the tiny group of wealthy people who have profited enormously at the expense of the middle class over the last three decades? Nor are the deficit hawks interested in reining in the drug companies, the insurance companies or the doctors. The bloated prices and exorbitant pay of these actors is the main reason that U.S. health care costs are so wildly out of line with health care costs in other wealthy countries. But deficit hawks don’t get paid to go after rich people or the health care industry. Deficit hawks get paid to go after the benefits of middle-income people. This is why we were treated to a Washington Post column by finance industry executive Robert Pozen telling liberals that they should support his plan for raising the retirement age and cutting Social Security benefits for higher-income earners. When Pozen talks about cutting benefits for higher-income earners he is not thinking of people like Peter Peterson or Robert Rubin. He has his gun sights on people earning $40,000 to $80,000 a year. In other words, Pozen wants to cut benefits for workers like schoolteachers, firefighters and nurses. These are workers that definitely enjoy somewhat higher pay and a higher standard of living than most of the workforce, but only in Washington deficit hawks’ circles are these people living lavish lifestyles that need to be cut back. These workers are quite explicitly the target of the Washington deficit hawk gang. The deficit hawk crew will even shed some crocodile tears for the poor who earn near the minimum wage and live near the poverty level. They would raise their benefits if not for those greedy plumbers and mechanics who insist on getting the Social Security benefits that they paid for. In the next few weeks we will be treated to an endless parade of budget experts who will be yapping about “entitlements” and insisting that middle-income workers are living too lavishly. While all these experts have really impressive credentials it is important to remember that these credentials did not prevent this highly paid crew from overlooking the largest asset bubble in the history of the world. If this group had paid a tenth as much attention to the housing bubble as they are now paying to the deficit projections, we would not be sitting around with 25 million who are unemployed, under-employed or out of the workforce altogether. The deficit hawks are very good when it comes to whining about the deficit and demanding sacrifices from middle-class workers. They just aren’t very good when it comes to understanding the economy.

Read the full article →