united

menafn.com…

(MENAFN – Qatar News Agency) Argentina is to make a formal complaint to the United Nations about British “militarization” around the disputed Falkland Islands. Argentina’s President Cristina …

See the original post here:
Argentina to Raise Falklands UK ‘Militarization’ at UN

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

menafn.com…

(MENAFN – Jordan Times) The events and tensions that revolve around Iran and its multi-faceted relations with its immediate neighbours – and its antagonists farther afield in the United States, …

See the original post:
Israel-America-Iran – the dangers grow

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

UN passes leaner 2012-2013 budget

December 26, 2011

(MENAFN – Saudi Press Agency) The U.N. General Assembly on Saturday approved a 5 percent decrease in the United Nations’ budget for 2012-2013 over the previous two-year period, only the second time …

Read the full article →

Iraq’s ‘Frontier Investors’ Unlikely To Be Scared Off By U.S. Exit

October 23, 2011

BAGHDAD (Serena Chaudhry) – Foreign investors eager to snap up development projects in key oil producer Iraq are unlikely to balk after the United States withdraws all its troops at the end of the year as long as security does not deteriorate. U.S. President Barack Obama said on Friday all U.S. forces would leave Iraq at the end of 2011 as scheduled, almost nine years after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein. Iraq is trying to rebuild after decades of war and economic sanctions and needs investment in every sector. The OPEC member country has signed a series of deals with international firms to develop its oil fields, the fourth-biggest in the world. Foreign investors like oil majors Royal Dutch Shell and BP and bank HSBC are already pouring billions of dollars into Iraq and a U.S. pullout will likely not thwart foreign firms for an extended period, especially those with long-standing interests in the country. “Any impact on investment will be short-term and quite muted, assuming the security situation doesn’t deteriorate drastically,” said Economist Intelligence Unit’sAli al-Saffar. “This is primarily because Iraq has only really managed to attract (beyond the oil sector), frontier investors who have some level of appetite for risk so far. These more adventurous investors know the risks associated with doing business in the country, and have become quite adept at dealing with them.” Iraqi security forces continue to battle a stubborn Sunni insurgency and Shi’ite militias, and bombings and killings still occur on a daily basis despite a sharp drop in violence from the height of sectarian fighting in 2006-07. For investors on the ground, primary concerns center around kidnapping threats and attacks on development sites. Oil pipelines are targeted by insurgents in the north and south. Some production at the southern Rumaila oilfield was stopped this month when two bombs hit pipelines. Most foreign companies with a footprint in Iraq hire personal security guards for their protection and analysts say it is unlikely the departure of U.S. troops by year-end will raise extensive concern. “For quite some time, investors have been operating in Iraq without very much in the way of assistance from the U.S. military so they may not notice a big difference following the withdrawal,” said AKE Group senior risk consultant John Drake. MORE CONFIDENCE Iraq’s government aims to attract $86 billion in investment by 2014 under a five-year economic development plan. Rehabilitation of the oil, housing, agriculture and power sectors are seen as most pressing. The head of Iraq’s National Investment Commission, Sami al-Araji, said in July the country had secured around $6 billion in investment for licensed projects so far this year. Examples of deals include a $472 million contract with Italy’s Saipem for an oil export facility expansion and sub-sea pipeline and a 100,000-unit housing project with South Korea’s Hanwha Engineering & Construction. Foreign investors have also been net buyers on the Iraq Stock Exchange (ISX) so far this year, buying 66 billion shares to end-September with a volume of $110 million, according to ISX chief executive Taha Abdulsalam. “The complete pullout will probably slow down flows to ISX in the short-term, but overall this news is priced into the market by serious investors,” said Carl Wahlquist Ortiz, investment manager at City of London Investment Management in Dubai. “Typically, if you’re looking at Iraq, you’re looking for something a bit more risky, generally speaking.” Iraq’s stock market is still relatively small compared to international exchanges and its regional counterparts, but volume on the local bourse is expected to rise as more companies, particularly the local mobile phone firms, list. “It (the withdrawal) has to bring more confidence in the political and economic management of Iraq and confidence in the capability of enforcing security,” saidAmar Essa al-Jawahiri, an independent industrial and investment consultant in Baghdad. Iraq’s northern Kurdish region is a prime example of a part of Iraq where foreign investment and construction is booming. The area has been a place of relative calm since becoming a semi-autonomous zone under Western protection in 1991 and is widely regarded as a safe haven. (Editing by Jim Loney and Mike Nesbit) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Secretary-General Condemns Attack on UN Office in Nigeria

August 28, 2011

(MENAFN – Qatar News Agency) Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu has condemned the terrorist attack that targeted the United …

Read the full article →

UK- Can Central Banks Still Influence Exchange Rates?

August 25, 2011

(MENAFN – Alrroya) On September 16, 1992, a date that lives in infamy in the United Kingdom as “Black Wednesday,” the Bank of England abandoned its efforts to keep the British pound within its …

Read the full article →

Biden seeks to reassure China on US debt

August 22, 2011

(MENAFN – Arab Times) China’s prime minister expressed confidence Friday in the US economy as he held talks with visiting Vice-President Joe Biden after a historic downgrade of the United States’ …

Read the full article →

OMEGA Commercial Real Estate Blog (610) 616-4604: Bank of America …

June 4, 2011

Joe O'Donnell: Norristown, PA, United States: Joe O'Donnell has been in commercial real estate for over 8 years. His expertise is the corporate tenant/buyer representation as well as landlord for office, industrial and …

Read the full article →

Boeing To Cut 510 Jobs

June 4, 2011

(Reuters) – Boeing Co (BA.N) will lay off about 510 employees in its Space Exploration division as the United States’ space shuttle program draws to a close. There will no material impact on the company as a result of the job cuts, a spokesman for Boeing’s Space Exploration division told Reuters. The last workday for workers is scheduled to be August 5, pending completion of the final shuttle mission, the company said in a statement. The United States is retiring its three-ship fleet due to high operating costs and to free up funds to develop new spacecraft that can travel beyond the space station’s 220-mile-high (346-km-high) orbit. Earlier this week, space shuttle Endeavour touched down at its Florida home base, ending the next-to-last mission in the space shuttle program. Shuttle Atlantis is slated to launch on July 8 on NASA’s final planned shuttle mission. Shares of the Chicago-based Boeing closed at $74.84 on Friday on the New York Stock Exchange. (Reporting by Abhishek Takle in Bangalore, Editing by Jonathan Thatcher) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Ratings Agency Warns U.S. On Debt Limit

June 3, 2011

June 2, 2011 11:35:36 PM By Daniel Bases and Donna Smith NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Ratings agency Moody’s warned Thursday it would consider cutting the United States’ coveted top-notch credit rating if the White House and Congress do not make progress by mid-July in talks to raise the U.S. debt limit. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, seeking to convince Congress to increase his borrowing authority and prevent a government default, went to Capitol Hill to press his case in a 45-minute meeting with first-term lawmakers. “I am confident that two things are going to happen this summer,” Geithner told reporters after the meeting. “One is that we are going to avoid a default crisis and we are going to reach agreement on a long-term fiscal plan.” The meeting occurred just hours after Moody’s Investors warned that slow-moving deficit talks led by Vice President Joe Biden, hindered by entrenched positions on both sides, had increased the odds of a short-lived default by Washington. Moody’s warning increases pressure on President Barack Obama and House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in the U.S. Congress, to strike a deal soon or risk upsetting global financial markets. Geithner has predicted a financial catastrophe if Congress fails to increase the current $14.3 trillion borrowing cap by Aug. 2, when his department will exhaust the extraordinary cash management measures it has been using since reaching the debt limit on May 16. Geithner said he had a “good meeting” with the first-term lawmakers, but some of the skeptical Republicans, who oppose increasing the debt limit without implementing deep spending cuts, were less pleased. “It is frustrating when the secretary talks in circles and that is very unfortunate,” said Representative Stephen Lee Fincher. “We are all big boys and girls. We need a framework put forward and we are not seeing that out of this administration, only seeing talk, talk and talk.” Representative Kristi Noem, a favorite of the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement, said the freshmen Republicans made it clear to Geithner that they would not “give this administration a blank check to spend even more.” “Secretary Geithner doesn’t get it,” said Noem, one of the ”mama grizzlies” touted by ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. But a Treasury official characterized the talks with lawmakers as friendly and constructive. POLITICAL GRANDSTANDING Saying the risk of “continuing stalemate” between the two sides had grown, Moody’s urged progress on deficit reduction soon before politics takes over in the run-up to the November 2012 presidential election. “We think this is an opportunity,” Steven Hess, sovereign credit analyst for Moody’s, told Reuters. “If this opportunity goes by without them realizing a serious long-term debt/deficit reduction program, then we think that until the presidential election, the chances of such an agreement are really much reduced.” Mary Miller, a top Treasury official, said the Moody’s statement underscored the need for Congress to move quickly to make sure the United States could meet all its debt obligations while working to reach a long-term fiscal deal. A U.S. default would roil global financial markets, but few investors are rattled just yet. Wall Street, in large part, expects the debt and deficit negotiations to go down to the wire, as did talks over tax cuts and the 2011 budget. “We’ve been through this political grandstanding before,” said Jim Kochan, chief fixed-income strategist at Wells Fargo Advantage Funds. “We always go right down to the day on debt ceiling targets being raised. No congressman and no president wants to be responsible for Social Security payments not going out. This is a minimal risk. We’ve seen this so many times.” Obama has tasked Biden to lead negotiations with Republican and Democratic lawmakers to find a deficit-reduction deal that would be palatable to Congress and pave the way for the debt limit to be raised. Their talks are due to resume on June 9. But Republicans refuse to consider tax increases as part of a deal, while Democrats are opposed to Republican proposals to scale back the popular government-run Medicare healthcare program for future retirees. Republicans seized on the announcement by Moody’s, which comes two months after Standard & Poor’s revised down its credit outlook on the U.S. rating, as proof of the need to make some sharp spending cuts. “This report makes clear that if we let this opportunity pass without real deficit reduction, America’s financial standing will be at risk,” said Boehner. “A credible agreement means the spending cuts must exceed the debt limit increase. Senator Charles Schumer, a top Democrat, said a compromise that prevents a “catastrophic default on our obligations and significantly reduces the debt is within reach.” (Additional reporting by Rachelle Younglai, Alister Bull and Thomas Ferraro; Writing by Deborah Charles; Editing by Ross Colvin, David Lawder and Eric Walsh) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Moody’s: Small But Rising Risk Of Short-Lived U.S. Default

June 2, 2011

Moody’s Investors Service said on Thursday there is a very small but rising risk of a short-lived default by the United States if there is no increase in the statutory debt limit in coming weeks. In a statement, Moody’s said it would put the Aaa U.S. rating on review for a possible downgrade if lawmakers in Washington do not make substantive progress in budget talks by the middle of July. “Since the risk of continuing stalemate has grown, if progress in negotiations is not evident by the middle of July, such a rating action is likely,” Moody’s said. The ratings agency, whose announcement follows a similar warning from Standard & Poor’s earlier this year, said if the debt limit is raised and default avoided, the Aaa rating will be maintained. Still, the rating outlook will depend on the outcome of debt talks in Washington, Moody’s said. “Moody’s downgrade adds pressure on Congressional leaders to work hard at reaching an agreement to increase the debt ceiling,” said Kathy Lien, director of currency research at GFT Forex in New York. If a downgrade were to occur, Moody’s said it would put the U.S. credit in the Aa range. Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Former Director of Secret Service Joins iSekurity’s Board

June 2, 2011

WARREN, MI–(Marketwire – Jun 2, 2011) – iSekurity , an identity theft security and restoration firm comprised of former United States Federal Agents, announced today Eljay Bowron joined its Board of Directors.

Read the full article →

Former Director of Secret Service Joins iSekurity’s Board

June 2, 2011

WARREN, MI–(Marketwire – Jun 2, 2011) – iSekurity , an identity theft security and restoration firm comprised of former United States Federal Agents, announced today Eljay Bowron joined its Board of Directors.

Read the full article →

Bowron Joins iSekurity’s Board

June 1, 2011

WARREN, MI–(Marketwire – Jun 1, 2011) – iSekurity , an identity theft security and restoration firm comprised of former United States Federal Agents, announced today Eljay Bowron joined its Board of Directors.

Read the full article →

Government Properties Income Trust Acquires 305 E 46th for $114M

June 1, 2011

Government Properties Income Trust acquired 305 E. 46th Street in New York City from Extell Development Company for $114 million, or approximately $742 per square foot. The 16-story, 153,689-square-foot office building was built in 1928 and is located between First and Second Ave. in the United Nations submarket. The building currently houses the United Nations in a lease through 2018. James Gross of Williamson, Picket, Gross, Inc. represented…

Read the full article →

Tornadoes, Floods Don’t Pose Threat To Larger Economy, Experts Say

May 27, 2011

WASHINGTON — The tornadoes and floods that have devastated parts of the South and Midwest have also hammered the local economies – flooding farmlands, suspending factory work and disrupting energy production. Yet for the U.S. economy overall, the damage will likely be scant. At most, the disasters might knock one-tenth of 1 percentage point off national economic growth in the April-June quarter, Wells Fargo economist Mark Vitner estimates. “It’s so small, you aren’t going to notice it,” said Patrick Newport, an economist at IHS Global Insight. Others caution, though, that the tornado season hasn’t ended yet, and the hurricane season has yet to arrive. Further major disasters could begin to weigh on the U.S. economy. Early forecasts estimate that the economy will have grown at a 2.5 percent to 3 percent annual rate in the current April-June quarter. That’s a relatively weak pace that wouldn’t spur robust job growth. Still, it’s above the 1.8 percent growth the government reported Thursday for the January-March period. The natural disasters haven’t led economists to reduce their estimates for April-June quarter. “This is a very extreme year,” said Tom Larsen, a senior vice president at Eqecat, a firm that estimates the impact of catastrophes for insurance companies and government agencies. “If it were to stop right now, it would be a once every 25 years’ or every 50 years’ occurrence.” But Larsen doesn’t expect it to stop. “There will be more tornadoes and more property damage,” he said. Typically, damage caused by tornadoes is more concentrated than damage from powerful hurricanes, such as Katrina, economists say. The tornado that devastated Joplin, Mo., on Sunday probably won’t slow the overall state’s economy very much, said Ben Kanigel, an associate economist at Moody’s Analytics. That’s because Joplin accounts for only about 2 percent of Missouri’s economic output. Larsen estimates that the Joplin twister, the deadliest in the United States in more than six decades, and the tornadoes in late April that damaged parts of Alabama and six other Southern states could cause more than $8 billion in losses. His firm hasn’t yet made a similar estimate for the Mississippi flood. Though a blow to the local areas, $8 billion in losses would hardly make a dent in a national economy that produces about $15 trillion in goods and services every year. The United States is the world’s largest economy. The economy is measured by the gross domestic product. The GDP tracks only what the economy produces; it doesn’t account for wealth or property. So if a tornado destroys a factory, the value of the lost factory isn’t counted in GDP. Only its lost output is. Likewise, the loss of a house and other personal property isn’t reflected in GDP. Yet rebuilding from a disaster can add to GDP, because reconstruction would boost output. Construction firms rebuild homes and factories. And consumers replace lost cars and appliances. That’s why analysts predict that any loss of economic output in the April-June period would be reversed in the July-September quarter. “Despite the fact that Joplin and Missouri are clearly worse off, we don’t subtract this destruction from GDP,” said David Mitchell, an economist at Missouri State University. “But we do add people’s work to recreate the infrastructure, homes and buildings that were destroyed. In this sense, GDP can be a poor measure of a country’s economic well-being.” The disasters have had devastating consequences for many communities. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimates that nearly 3.6 million acres of farmland are either under water or have been damaged by the Mississippi River flood. The river, swollen by spring rains and a large snow melt, has forced evacuations of thousands of homes from Tennessee to Mississippi. John Michael Riley, an agricultural economist at Mississippi State University, estimates that the flood has destroyed up to $1.5 billion of corn, wheat and other crops. Livestock pastures and fish farms have also been hurt, he said. Still, some industries haven’t been hit as hard as analysts had feared. Many had economists worried that several major oil refineries near New Orleans might be flooded and have to shut down. That would have crimped supplies and potentially driven up the price of oil. But that didn’t happen. “The worst fears have not been realized as of yet,” said Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates, a Houston-based firm.

Read the full article →

Scott Bittle: Fiscal Follies: The Debt Ceiling and the 48 Percent Solution

May 27, 2011

With the debate over the nation’s debt ceiling continuing to rage, research conducted by our organization, Public Agenda , shows a real chasm between Washington and the rest of the country. Two-thirds of Washington leaders say we need to raise the debt limit , while surveys of the public show that most Americans continue to oppose it. But there is a crucial detail in the public opinion polls that is not getting the attention it deserves. When the Washington Post and Pew Research Center surveyed Americans about raising the debt ceiling, nearly half of Americans (48 percent) admitted that they didn’t have a good understanding of what would happen if the government didn’t raise the debt limit. When that many citizens freely acknowledge that they don’t have a solid grasp of the risks to the country if the debt ceiling deal-making goes south, that’s a wake-up call for leadership. Real leadership, that is, that’s focused on the best interests of the country as opposed an obsession with elections and politics. There are times when elected officials should follow public opinion and pay careful attention to the public’s concerns and priorities. And there are times when elected officials need to lead — they need to be stewards for the country’s future. When public understanding is limited, when people don’t grasp the consequences of a major governmental decision, the time for genuine leadership has come. Technically, the United States passed the $14.3 trillion debt limit earlier in May, and now the federal government can’t borrow any more money until Congress raises the limit. Thanks to some clever accounting at the Treasury, the government can keep going until Aug 2, but at that point, the government wouldn’t have enough money to cover its bills. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has a low-tech, but riveting 60-second version of what it would really mean up on YouTube. The country would have money coming in. After all, we’ll all still have taxes withheld from every paycheck. But what’s coming in would only cover about 60 percent of our expenses, which wouldn’t be enough to cover even what most Americans consider a very “small government.” We have to at least pay the interest on the debt, otherwise we’ll risk unleashing an unpredictable, perhaps uncontrollable meltdown in the international bond markets. (We may not be safe from financial disruptions even if we pay the interest.) Once we’ve done that, there’s simply not enough money to go around. We wouldn’t have enough money to cover all the bills for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, although surely we’d use what is left of the country’s revenues to pay a good chunk of each one. The real problem comes later; after paying for interest and entitlement spending, there won’t be any money left for anything else. As Holtz-Eakin puts it, “no money for the troops, no money for procurement or transportation of materials.” And the Defense Department is just the first casualty. There would be no federal money for public schools, college loans, highways, the Centers for Disease Control or just about anything else most of us expect from government. The truth is that most Americans just don’t realize what not raising the debt ceiling really means. Former President Bill Clinton may have hit on something when asked why polls showed opposition to raising the ceiling at the Fiscal Summit sponsored by the Peterson Foundation this week. “Because they’ve never lived through it,” he said. “No one knows what will happen.” It is true that another common element of leadership is to use a deadline and potential crisis to force a balky group of people to sit down and get a solid deal done. One reason why the debate in Congress is stalled is because many political leaders see the debt ceiling as an opportunity to force change in the federal budget — change that surely has to come. If we actually get sensible, practical change as a result, then we can give our leaders credit for doing their job. If they get an attack of bipartisanship and willingness to compromise, we might even be able to give them credit for a job well done. But if elected officials in Washington allow the United States to slide into a potential economic disaster by blindly following what they think the polls are telling them, then history will heap on them the censure and condemnation they will so richly deserve. Indeed, the American people themselves may take a different view once the results of the decision become evident. If they think that voters are going to reward them for putting the entire country through the wringer, they’re likely to be very disappointed.

Read the full article →

US Coast Guard Former National Strike Force Commander to Join O’Brien’s Response Management

May 25, 2011

HOUSTON, TX–(Marketwire – May 25, 2011) – O’Brien’s Response Management is pleased to announce that Captain Roderick Walker, United States Coast Guard (Retired), is joining O’Brien’s as Manager, Consulting Services.

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 →

Children of Immigrants: America’s Science Superstars

May 24, 2011

Adding fuel to the fiery debate over immigration policy, a study released Tuesday shows that top science achievers in the U.S. are overwhelmingly the children of immigrants. The study, conducted by the National Foundation for American Policy , found that 70 percent of the finalists in the 2011 Intel Science Talent Search competition — also known as the “Junior Nobel Prize” — were the children of immigrants even though only 12 percent of the U.S. population is foreign-born. According to the report, children of immigrant parents have been increasingly dominant in the fields of math and science. In 2004, for example, researchers found that 60 percent of the top science students in the U.S. and 65 percent of the top math students were born to immigrant families. Findings were based upon data from the Intel Science Talent Search and the 2004 U.S. Math Olympiad. Based on these findings, the study concluded that “Liberalizing our nation’s immigration laws will likely yield even greater rewards for America in the future.” Yet providing a path to residency for immigrants — both legal and illegal — has proven politically difficult, and some advocates are pessimistic about any significant reform in the near future. Tamar Jacoby, President of ImmigrationWorks USA , a business-focused immigration advocacy group, told HuffPost, “We’re in a totally different climate than we were in 2006 and 2007. Immigration has become such an impacted, partisan issue. Never say never — I hope something can happen — but it’s hard for me to see [reform] happening any time before the 2012 election.” In particular, debate continues over reforming H1-B visa — a temporary 3- to 6-year visa for skilled foreign workers. According to the NFAP study, 24 of the 28 immigrant parents of 2011 Intel Science Talent Search winners started working in the United States on H-1B visas and later received an employer-sponsored green card. Proponents of H1B visa reform, including both the White House and technology companies , say skilled workers should be incentivized to stay in the U.S. and not forced to leave after a certain time period, thereby encouraged to set up rival operations overseas. While there is some interest on both sides of the immigration debate in keeping skilled workers in the country, Jacoby posits that advocates pushing for comprehensive immigration reform are unlikely to take up the H1-B visa issue independent of their broader reform goals. Said Jacoby: “They want to keep that steam bottled up. It’s an ‘All or nothing’ regime.” “In my view,” Jacoby added, “if it was ever a useful strategy, I think it’s outlived its usefulness. There haven’t been any fixes. We’re just not gonna get the whole package anymore.”

Read the full article →

The 10 States Where Walmart Is King

May 23, 2011

Walmart, the world’s largest retailer and the largest company in America based on sales and employees, has tried to argue since the beginning of the recession that it can revive its moribund sales growth in the United States. The odds that it can accomplish this are extraordinarily low. In the quarter which ended on April 29, same-store sales in the US fell 1.1 percent and revenue was up only 0.6 percent to $62.7 billion. The company’s growth is constrained by the fact that six of every ten dollars of Walmart’s sales come from the U.S. Slow growth there has been a source of concern. Bill Simon replaced Eduardo Castro-Wright as head of U.S. operations in June 2010. Simon said his main focus would be on increasing store traffic and same-store sales while keeping prices low. That’s been easier said than done as economic growth slowed and gas prices soared.

Read the full article →

Krugman: European Central Bank Not Facing ‘Failure Of Its Fantasies’

May 23, 2011

I often complain, with reason, about the state of economic discussion in the United States. And the irresponsibility of certain politicians — like those Republicans claiming that defaulting on U.S. debt would be no big deal — is scary.

Read the full article →

Democrats Probe Koch’s Interest In Oil Sands Pipe

May 21, 2011

Democratic U.S. lawmakers have asked Congressional panels to look into whether Koch, an energy company led by brothers who are powerhouses in conservative politics, will benefit if the Obama administration approves a $7 billion pipeline to bring crude from Canada into the United States.

Read the full article →

Republicans Question Debt Armageddon Warnings On Debt

May 19, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Would it really be such a big deal if the United States couldn’t pay its bills? As Washington searches for a budget deal that would give lawmakers political cover to sign off on further borrowing, some Republicans are questioning the Obama administration’s warnings of fiscal Armageddon if Congress does not raise the federal government’s debt limit in a timely manner. Their stance suggests the battle over taxes and spending could last well beyond the early August deadline set by the administration, forcing the government to make difficult choices about which bills to pay on time. The United States reached the legal limits of its borrowing authority on Monday, and the Treasury Department has urged Congress to increase the $14.29 trillion ceiling before August 2, when it predicts it will exhaust other methods for paying its obligations. Failure to act could bring on a second recession and roil markets worldwide, Treasury officials have said. But as Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, push for deep spending cuts as the price of any debt-ceiling hike, many of them say Wall Street would understand if Washington didn’t get a deal done by then. “The markets are not fooled by some date imposed to say that that is the trigger for the collapse,” House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said in Richmond, according to the Washington Post. “I think the markets are looking to see that there is real reform.” Because the government is taking in more than enough tax revenue to service its outstanding debt, the argument goes, the Treasury Department would be able to service its debt even if it ran out of money to pay all of its obligations. Some argue that investors might not be upset even if the government missed a few bond payments. “Failure to raise the debt limit for an extended period of time would be disruptive,” U.S. Senator Pat Toomey, a Republican, said at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “It’s very important that we also remember that this is not a catastrophic default. A disruptive series of events is not the same as a catastrophe.” Toomey said the debt limit would have to be raised eventually and challenged the administration to tell investors that it will make debt service a priority in the meantime. DIFFICULT CHOICES The Obama administration is taking the talk seriously. Administration officials on Wednesday handed out a stack of letters dating back to the 1980s, warning of the dire consequences of putting off a debt-limit increase. A senior administration official questioned whether bond buyers would continue to pay low rates for government debt while the country was breaking leases on buildings and railroads and deciding what would go unpaid. “Who’s buying our debt in those auctions while we are defaulting on other obligations?” the official said. “The slippery slope of deciding every day what you would pay and what you wouldn’t pay is an impossible exercise.” Treasury would face some difficult choices if the ceiling were not raised by the time it runs out of financing options. The government is projected to collect enough taxes to cover about 60 percent of its expenses this year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. That could easily cover the projected $213 billion in interest costs but would still leave the government far short of the money it needed to pay for everything else — from wars to student loans. Toomey’s view is catching on with other Republicans. The head of a group of 174 conservative lawmakers in the House said on Monday that failure to raise the debt ceiling would not bring on a default but only force Congress to prioritize its spending. “The only thing forcing a default would be Treasury Secretary Geithner allowing such a catastrophe to take place,” said Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan. Fund manager Stanley Druckenmiller told the Wall Street Journal he was more worried that Washington would fail to reach a long-term budget deal to keep debt under control than the prospect of a few days of missed bond payments. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said on Tuesday that Druckenmiller’s comments “captured our feeling pretty well” and echoed sentiments he heard from others. “If a bond holder misses a payment for a day or two or three or four, what is more important (is) that you’re putting the government in a materially better position to be able to pay their bonds later on,” Ryan said on CNBC. Dan Ripp, an analyst with securities firm Bradley Woods, said bond markets would likely remain calm if the Treasury Department was forced to issue IOUs to federal employees or cut back on Medicare payments to doctors as long as it continued to make its debt payments. But the country’s credit rating could permanently suffer if Treasury was forced to miss bond payments as it would blemish a perfect repayment record that goes back more than 200 years. “When you have a perfect record and then it’s not perfect, you can’t go back to perfect again,” Ripp said. (Additional reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Caren Bohan, Paul Simao and Todd Eastham) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Gold Scams On The Rise

May 18, 2011

NEW YORK — Last year, Brian Gurl spent some time reading about the state of the U.S. economy. He kept hearing about the gargantuan size of the federal debt and the threat of inflation on TV. Gurl is approaching retirement age, so he and his wife needed safe investments. The couple decided on gold. “We approached several companies. But it was American Precious Metals who were the most aggressive,” said Gurl, who invested about $100,000 with the company last Fall. “They just sounded very expert.” In the span of a few months, the couple lost about $60,000, Gurl said. Last week, a Florida U.S. District Court issued a temporary injunction barring American Precious Metals from doing business, freezing its assets and putting the company in the hands of a court-appointed receiver. The case against American Precious Metals marks the third gold-related case brought by the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission since March. The agency has also issued a fraud advisory for investors interested in precious metals. 2011, it seems, is the year of commodities and companies prepared to capitalize on investor anxiety. The soaring prices of all sorts of commodities, uncertainty about the broader economy and the low interest rates banks are paying on savings has drawn both companies and investors to precious metals, said Brad Barber, a professor of finance at the University of California Davis. “It’s always easy to sell an investment — real or fraudulent — when it’s earned really high returns recently,” Barber said. “People tend to think they are getting in on the ground floor, but in fact the elevator may have already gone up and may be on its way down.” Institutional and individual investors hungry to make up losses suffered during the recession, people looking for a safe investment with potentially large returns and those concerned about the economy’s stability have all scrambled to join the gold profit party. Together they have created what many analysts insist is a bubble sure to burst. Gold prices — which reached about $1,495 an ounce on Wednesday — have hit and nearly returned to record highs this year. Yet with public interest in gold remaining high, precious metals scams have begun to proliferate. In March the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that in the last three years nearly 50 companies selling precious metals investments have opened in just two Florida counties. This month, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that companies targeting Minnesota seniors persuaded gold coin investors to pay for their purchases with reverse mortgages . Last year, Goldline, a company that advertised during the “Glenn Beck Show” — and had the good fortune of Beck suggesting on air that gold was a good investment — also became the subject of two state-level investigations. Beck has described the investigations as government efforts to eliminate opportunities to buy gold. In a pair of companion cases, the CFTC and FTC have accused American Precious Metals of targeting investors — particularly senior citizens — across the country with a combination of high-pressure and illegal sales tactics and misleading and fraudulent claims. “What these telemarketers said in general is … you can’t lose, you’re going to make money,” said Sana Chriss, an FTC attorney working on the case. “Well that just isn’t true. The value of everything can change. At one point it was real estate that was the hot and infallible area and then we had the bust there. Before that it was tech stocks.” At American Precious Metals, the sales pitch usually began with a world event, Chriss said. Peruvian miners were on strike, rendering the world’s silver supply suddenly short of demand. Silver prices would skyrocket tomorrow, went one pitch. The value of the U.S. dollar was sliding. But gold bar and uncirculated coins will always retain their value. In fact, gold prices are flirting with record highs and were certain to keep climbing, said another. American Precious Metals telemarketers rounded out each story with the same high-pressure sales pitch, according to court documents. Only the utterly unwise would pass on the company’s super-safe precious metals investments, the telemarketers claimed. The approach worked well enough to bilk as much as $37 million from investors, according to court documents filed this month in U.S. District Court by the FTC. A hearing that could lead to the permanent closure of American Precious Metals is scheduled for next week. Andrea and Harry Tanner Jr., the husband and wife owner-manager team behind American Precious Metals, did not respond to a request for comment left at their home. The company’s other owner, Sammy Goldman, could not be reached for comment. Both Goldman and Harry Tanner have been the targets of previous regulatory action. Between 1982 and 2006, Goldman was listed as a principal or an executive at companies that were the subject of regulatory action bought by the CFTC and National Futures Association, an industry trade group and self-regulatory body, according to court documents. In 2000, the NFA charged Tanner with making false and deceptive sales solicitations. Tanner agreed to a $5,000 fine and a requirement that he record his conversations with customers over a six month period, according to court documents. In 2006, the trade group expelled Tanner permanently and fined him $100,000. The NFA had found Tanner made misleading and deceptive sales calls to potential investors. Just months after his NFA expulsion, Tanner set up American Precious Metals and hired several sales people who had also been disciplined for deceiving customers about investments, according to court documents. By early January 2010, American Precious Metals had nearly 400 customers who thought they owned gold, silver, platinum and palladium. Gurl can not speak in detail about his interactions with American Precious Metals because he and his wife filed suit against the company in December. He did say they thought their money would be used to buy gold and other precious metals. But the federal agencies that shut down American Precious Metals this month say that the company never purchased any physical quantities of any precious metal, according to court documents. Instead, the company moved investor funds between a series of accounts in the United States and the United Kingdom. American Precious Metals also allegedly converted a large portion of each customer’s investment into a loan. Customers were then charged fees, commissions and interest that totaled about 40 percent of their total investment, according to court documents. Investors were encouraged to keep contributing. If they refused, their accounts were closed. And if an investor asked to take possession of the gold or other metals, he or she was assured the goods were safely stored. Shipping, security and other costs associated with delivery would simply chip away at the customer’s account balance, the company said, according to court documents. “What that really meant is that people invested large sums of money, paid all sorts of fees and interest and got very small amounts back when the accounts were closed,” said Chriss. “One consumer put in maybe $40,000. I think she got back $100 in the end.”

Read the full article →

Meredith Bagby: Debt Ceiling: The Sky’s Not Falling — Yet

May 17, 2011

It’s official. As of Monday, May 16, the United States of America has reached its debt limit ( $14.294 trillion ). That means that the Treasury Department can no longer borrow money to pay the debts or meet the expenses of the U.S. government. You may say, wait, the sky didn’t fall. People are not running in the streets in chaos. The stock and bond markets haven’t crashed. I had my latte this morning and it was delicious. So what’s the big deal? The reason those things haven’t happened (yet) is thanks to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Geithner sent a letter to Congress on Monday explaining how he is able to “move money around” and keep things running until August 2 . He’s “fudging” the debt constraints right now by “suspending investments in federal retirement funds.” Depending on the level of U.S. government expenses, he may also have to pay just interest due to bondholders (rather than principal) — and generally pick and choose which debtors to pay off and which to put off — on a day-to-day basis. This strategy, said Geithner, is akin to a homeowner who pays his mortgage at the expense of his car loan and credit cards. While the sky isn’t falling today, or even this week, Geithner says that he can’t keep this juggling act up forever. In his letter to Congress, he wrote that we must “increase the debt limit in order to protect the full faith and credit of the United States and avoid catastrophic economic consequences for citizens.” Fifty-six percent of Americans agree with this prognosis, according to a POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll. If the debt ceiling is not raised — at a minimum — “our bond market and stock market would crash,” said former Congressional Budget Director Rudolph Penner . It’s hard to imagine what a maximum would be. Despite this looming disaster, it doesn’t seem like Congress is in too big a hurry to do anything about it. Quite the opposite: Tea Partiers and many Republicans are hoping that this coming financial apocalypse will force the Democrats to make big cuts fast to the U.S. budget. Speaker John Boehner said in response to Geithner’s plea: “There will be no debt limit increase without serious budget reforms and significant spending cuts — cuts that are greater than any increase in the debt limit.” And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell threatened that he would not vote for an increase in the debt ceiling without “serious” reforms to entitlements like Medicaid and Medicare. Meanwhile, Democrats argue that any solution must include raising tax revenue — a position that Republicans have said is unacceptable. Democratic House leaders are in New York this week meeting with Wall Street execs, to present their vision of deficit reduction. (Speaker John Boehner met with Wall-Streeters last Monday.) Meanwhile in D.C., Vice President Joe Biden is leading a bipartisan, bicameral panel charged with coming up with long-term deficit solutions — even as House members are on recess. The difference, of course, between Democrat and Republican strategies, is that the Republicans are willing to drive this game of chicken all the way off the cliff if they don’t get what they want. We learned this in the last round of budget negotiations in April — and that’s a difficult position with which to negotiate. Democrats are full of warnings, but they are willing to negotiate. Republican are full of threats and they’re willing to pull the trigger. Will we get a compromise? As of today, the bond markets haven’t collapsed. Neither has the stock market. Most well-respected financial analysts are betting there will be an accord. But — given this year’s tough budget negotiation — maybe the question we should be asking is: at what price?

Read the full article →

Joseph A. Palermo: The Republican Supreme Court Sticks It to the Little Guy (Again)

May 15, 2011

Once again the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has shown the nation it will always favor corporations over people even if it means conjuring new law out of thin air. Like Citizens United, the recent 5-4 ruling in AT&T’s favor gutting the power of consumers to file class-action lawsuits against giant corporations tips the scales of justice against the people and renders the enormous power of corporations even more enormous. When I first heard about the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion there was little doubt in my mind that the Gang of Five — John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would figure out a way to ignore Supreme Court precedent and again apply their judicial activism in service to the corporations, and by extension, to the oligarchy they apparently believe the “founders” intended. It’s kind of funny when we see Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romeny, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich pandering to the “little guy” denouncing “elites” who are trampling on their rights only to remain mute on the fact that their beloved Republican Supreme Court never, ever rules in favor of the “little guy.” The Republican president Ronald Reagan gave us Scalia and Kennedy; the Republican president George Herbert Walker Bush gave us Thomas; and the Republican president George W. Bush gave us Roberts and Alito. This cabal has shown over and over again where its true loyalties lie, not to “the law,” not to “the Constitution,” not to “calling balls and strikes,” but to a 21st century version of corporate feudalism. This new corporate feudalism that the High Court is determined to thrust on the nation is even more exploitative than the earlier brand of Medieval feudalism because it is absent noblesse oblige. The serfs toiling on the corporate plantation can only continue to pay Chase and Bank of America for their underwater mortgages, ExxonMobil and Chevron for their $4 a gallon gas, and AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile and the rest for the privilege of communicating in a modern society. And if the serfs seek redress the High Court will slap them down before they can get anything substantial off the ground. With Citizens United placing a stranglehold of corporate power over our state, local, and federal system of elections, we cannot turn to our political “leaders” for redress, we can’t turn to the courts, and we certainly can’t turn to trying to morally persuade sociopathic non-human entities called corporations — so where does that leave us? In the current context of unrestrained corporate dominance it’s unconscionable that the Obama administration has not done more to blunt its disastrous effects. The Justice and Treasury Departments, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, etc. could be doing a hell of a lot more in bringing balance to the equation of corporations versus people. The administration’s lagging performance in holding Wall Street accountable is well known, but it won’t even lift a finger to block grotesque mergers like the one between Comcast and NBC Universal, and AT&T and T Mobile . In all these mergers and acquisitions it’s always the consumers and the employees who lose, while the CEOs and a select few of shareholders and financiers make out like the bandits they are. Nothing illustrates the corruption rampant in Washington more than the recent resignation of Federal Communications Commission member, Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican who Obama appointed to show how “bipartisan” he can be, who is now going to work as a lavishly paid shill for the very industry she was supposedly “regulating.” Ms. Baker will now make the big bucks serving Comcast/NBC Universal after she voted for the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. Sweet. And few in the Beltway see anything unsavory about it. Our political leaders, our Supreme Court, our captains of industry and finance, are so out of touch it’s going to be a long, long time before ordinary working people see any relief. All of our institutions, political, economic, even religious, social, and cultural, all of them, are failing the people miserably in pursuit of the Almighty Buck. The cunning game of appointing young ideologues to the bench has paid off handsomely for the corporate power structure. Someone should tell those people running around in tri-cornered hats and talking about the “founders” that it might be wise to save an ounce of their collective wrath for the Republicans who have appointed five Justices who are trampling on individual freedoms in service of corporations.

Read the full article →

CHART: Where Is The Center Of America’s Population?

May 13, 2011

Once a decade the United States Census Bureau marks a point on the nation’s map that it calls the “National Mean Center of Population.” The Census Bureau describes it as “the place where an imaginary, flat, weightless and rigid map of the United States would balance perfectly if all 308,745,538 residents counted in the 2010 Census were of identical weight.” (Hat tip to NYT’s Economix) This decade’s National Mean Center of Population in Plato, Missouri maintains the steady westward movement that the point has made since it first started in 1790 in Kent County, Maryland. As people travelled westward, the national mean center crawled after them. This decade’s step of 23.4 miles West and slightly South marks the shortest distance the point has travelled since 1970. To see the National Mean Center’s gradual move westward see the chart below provided by the U.S. Census Bureau . You can also learn the mean center of population by state here . IFRAMES not supported

Read the full article →

William S. Becker: Big Oil’s Political Ploy

May 13, 2011

Whatever else we might say about Big Oil in the United States, we have to give the industry credit for one thing: it has mastered the art of scamming us with a perfectly straight face. The scam has been underway for decades. This year’s example is the debate about repealing $21 billion in federal subsidies for big oil companies over the next decade.To their credit, President Obama and several Democrats in Congress are pushing the idea. Oil executives have launched a counteroffensive reminiscent of Gordon Gekko’s argument that “greed is good.” Requiring taxpayers to subsidize America’s biggest oil companies is in the best interest of the country, they say, and anyone who disagrees is playing politics. ExxonMobil, for example, said that President Obama and congressional Democrats are engaging in “political theater” on this issue. Perhaps. But the real plot line is that big oil companies are fighting once again to keep largesse they don’t need and the nation can’t afford. Here are some examples of the time-tested arguments we’re hearing from Big Oil: Eliminating their subsidies will force oil companies to increase the cost of gasoline. Even some oil executives acknowledge this is not true. Unless the industry uses subsidy reform as an excuse to gouge consumers, reducing its tax breaks will not affect energy prices. The handful of subsidies under scrutiny here are the proverbial drop in the oil barrel. They are a fraction of the special favors oil companies receive from the federal government, usually at taxpayer expense. And oil company revenues are so high, even counting the cyclic nature of the market, that subsidy reform will not make a difference in energy prices. The bigger misdirection is the industry’s stubborn assertion that encouraging more domestic production with taxpayer subsidies and permission to drill everywhere will have a meaningful impact on consumer prices. Legions of experts have pointed out in the past that petroleum prices are set by a world oil market so large that more domestic drilling and subsidies won’t much matter. Two fresh examples illustrate how little we control the factors that influence the global petroleum market. Last December, a vegetable vendor in Tunisia set himself on fire to protest harassment by police. His self-immolation and subsequent death triggered the “Arab Spring” — a chain reaction of protests across the Arab world fueled by frustrations ranging from high food prices to chronic unemployment, and suppression of freedoms to government corruption. Oil prices rose just because of the fear that Arab unrest would threaten world supplies. The second example is the historic flooding along the Mississippi River. Hopes have been high that high oil prices will flatten demand and lower the cost of gasoline. But gasoline prices may rise anyway because the river is threatening to disrupt oil barges, pipelines and refineries. It’s unfair to cut subsidies for big oil companies when other companies and industries get taxpayer support. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-UT, made this statement when oil company executives testified before Congress on May 12. The corollary is that if oil companies get tax breaks, so should all other companies and industries. The last time I checked, we can’t afford that. More seriously, Hatch’s point is valid within the oil industry. Current proposals would cut some subsidies for big oil companies, but not smaller oil producers. The equitable solution is to phase out all federal subsidies for oil, regardless of the size of the company producing it. Applied to the energy sector in general, however, Hatch’s point is bogus. The oil industry has been getting federal subsidies for nearly a century, far longer and in far greater amounts than alternative energy industries. Rational public policy would recognize there’s a big and legitimate difference between subsidizing mature and wealthy industries such as coal and oil, and subsidizing emerging industries that are critical to national security, such as solar and wind energy. Fossil energy subsidies are classic corporate welfare; renewable energy subsidies help these vital young industries get across the “valley of death” and into the marketplace. The American people don’t want shared sacrifice. They want shared prosperity. This interesting statement came from Chevron CEO John Watson at the same congressional hearing. If Watson really supported the idea of “shared prosperity,” he’d volunteer to give his company’s tax breaks back to the American people. Rather than reducing federal budget deficits, cutting oil subsidies will have the opposite effect. Jobs and investors will disappear and government tax revenues will fall. This argument has been raised by Jim Mulva, chief executive of ConocoPhillips, among others. It’s ludicrous to believe that cutting these few subsidies will drive investors away from oil. So long as there are profits to be made, oil companies will drill and investors will invest. In a world in which populations are growing, consumerism is surging and emerging economies are injecting oil like steroids, there are ample profits to be made. Eliminating a few subsidies won’t change that. Cutting these subsidies is a tax increase for Big Oil. The “tax increase” argument is an all-purpose fear phrase routinely rolled out by fiscal conservatives and corporations. It’s not clear to me that eliminating a tax break qualifies as a tax increase, strictly speaking. Yes, removing subsidies would result in big oil companies paying higher taxes, assuming their accountants don’t find other ways to escape the obligation. But taking away subsidies merely results in oil companies paying what they should pay without favored treatment. Look at it this way: Big Oil is subsidized not only by access to public lands, low royalty fees and special breaks in the federal tax code. It also is subsidized every day by every one of us who pays taxes, buys gasoline or purchases a petroleum-based product. Our tax dollars pay the enormous costs of protecting overseas oil supplies and shipping lanes. The gas taxes we pay at the pump help build and maintain the highways that promote the use and sale of oil. More than 154 million Americans live in places where coal plants and petroleum-powered vehicles contribute to pollution that makes the air too dangerous to breathe . Families bear the medical costs and lost wages associated with that pollution. It’s difficult to feel bad about the taxes paid by Big Oil. Oil subsidy reform is election-year silliness and political posturing by Obama and reform advocates on the Hill. Ken Cohen, the vice-president of public and government affairs at Exxon, told the Financial Times the subsidy debate is merely “the kickoff for the 2012 presidential campaign and congressional elections.” So what? The 2012 election cycle is an excellent time for presidential and congressional candidates to differentiate themselves on national energy policy. Our oil addiction is one of the biggest national, environmental and economic security issues of our time. We need an electoral intervention. Cutting subsidies by $21 billion over 10 years will make little difference in reducing the federal deficit. That’s true. As of May 12, the national debt was more than $14 trillion — the largest in the world, about $46,000 for every citizen. But we have to start somewhere. To paraphrase the late Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, “Twenty billion here, twenty billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.” The oil subsidy debate has greater significance than $21 billion, however. It is a litmus test of conservative sincerity about reducing the federal deficit — a test the Tea Party should watch closely. So far, the spending cuts proposed in the Republican-controlled House have been driven by naked ideology, using deficit reduction as an opportunity to attack environmental regulations, climate science and government services for the poor and middle class. In the words of ExxonMobil, the votes have been pure political theater. Last February, shortly after he became Speaker of the House, John Boehner said this : “It is immoral to bind our children to as leeching and destructive a force as debt. It is immoral to rob our children’s future and make them beholden to China. No society is worthy that treats its children so shabbily.” With that level of moral conviction, it should be a no-brainer for Republicans to vote in favor of eliminating oil subsidies. If conservatives are not willing to harvest this low-hanging fruit, it’s doubtful they’ll make the far tougher choices that meaningful deficit reduction will require. Congress should take up oil subsidy reform another time, as part of overhauling the nation’s tax system. There’s no reason to wait on reforming such an obvious and equitable target for deficit reduction. And there’s no reason to believe that a Congress so deadlocked by partisanship and its own rules will succeed at reforming the tax code anytime soon. This isn’t the first time we’ve had this debate. In the past decade alone, oil executives were called before Congress to justify excessive profits in November 2005 when oil cost $60 a barrel; again six months later when a barrel of oil cost $75; again in April 2008 when oil hit $100 a barrel; and again this week, with crude back in the $100 range. For the past 40 years of oil crises, oil wars and oil-induced recessions, it has been Groundhog Day on Capitol Hill. The questions reform-minded members of Congress asked oil executives over the years remain relevant and unresolved today: Why should oil companies get tax breaks when their profits are so high and consumers are so broke? Why isn’t Big Oil investing more of its profits to develop the alternative energy resources that would keep the industry and the nation secure in the long-term? If it were up to me, all fossil energy subsidies would be shifted to a rapid buildup of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies in the United States. But if deficit reduction provides the only sufficient leverage for subsidy reform, so be it. However we use the revenues, we should resolve the indefensible perversities of national energy policy once and for all, starting with the elimination of federal subsidies for Big Oil.

Read the full article →

Nearly Half Of Americans Oppose Raising The Debt Ceiling: Gallup Poll

May 13, 2011

Despite warnings that America must raise the debt ceiling in order to avoid potentially catastrophic economic consequences, nearly half of Americans just don’t like that idea very much, a new poll says. According to new data from Gallup , 47 percent of Americans say they want their Congressman to vote against raising the debt ceiling. Only 19 percent say they would like to increase the debt limit. The U.S. government will hit the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling on Monday, May 16, but Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said he can and will use “extraordinary measures” to delay until August 2 what would be the first-ever default on U.S. bonds. The U.S. debt ceiling, defined as the country’s maximum level of borrowing power, is set by the government itself, but with both parties taking advantage of the moment to debate the federal deficit, it’s safe to say the issue has been usurped. No one political party supports raising the debt ceiling, Gallup finds, but Democrats get closest with 33 percent in support of raising the debt ceiling. Of Republicans, 70 percent say they oppose increasing the country’s borrowing power. Notably, over one in three Americans say they don’t well-enough understand the issue to take a stand, either way. But many other Americans say they are tuned into the issue. 57 percent of the 1,018 adults surveyed say they are very closely or somewhat closely following “discussions to raise the U.S. debt ceiling, the maximum amount of money the U.S. government can borrow by law.” 32 percent of Republicans say they are following the issue “very closely,” compared to 16 percent of Democrats. Not raising the debt limit would be extremely damaging to the U.S. economy, experts have warned. In early January, Treasury Secretary Geithner wrote in a letter to congressional leaders that no extension could cause “catastrophic damage to the economy, potentially much more harmful than the effects of the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.” The business community agrees. Just this week, 62 business groups collectively warned congress of what not extending the debt limit could mean for the economic recovery. “Raising the statutory debt limit is critical to ensuring global investors’ confidence in the creditworthiness of the United States,” the groups wrote, according to the Wall Street Journal . “With economic growth slowly picking up we cannot afford to jeopardize that growth with the massive spike in borrowing costs that would result if we defaulted on our obligations.

Read the full article →

GM Makes Big Investment In U.S. Plants

May 10, 2011

(Bernie Woodall) – General Motors Co said on Tuesday it will invest about $2 billion in 17 U.S. plants, including a facility here that makes transmissions for small cars, as the automaker shifts from recovery mode to investing in future products. GM said the plans will create or preserve more than 4,000 jobs as it retools the plants in eight states. The company employs 202,000 people globally, including 77,000 in the United States. “We are doing this because we are confident about demand for our vehicles and the economy,” GM Chief Executive Daniel Akerson said in a statement. Investors and analysts have speculated on GM’s plans for its growing pile of cash as the company’s liquidity has reached $36.5 billion. It earned $3.2 billion in the first quarter after posting net income of $4.7 billion for all of last year, its first full-year profit since 2004. GM did not disclose the timeline for the investments or in what other facilities it will invest other than to say more announcements will be made “over the next few months.” Executives previously signaled GM’s focus on building cars would only grow, as shown by last week’s announcement to invest $131 million revamping a Kentucky factory for a new version of the iconic Chevrolet Corvette sports car. The Kentucky announcement is part of the $2 billion plan. Another key issue as GM adds jobs is how many will be in the so-called second-tier wages that are about half those of veteran union-represented employees. The lower wage will figure prominently as major U.S. automakers face labor talks with the United Auto Workers this summer. GM filed for bankruptcy in 2009 after the U.S. housing downturn and a spike in gasoline prices the year before that caused consumers to turn away from its high-profit but fuel-hungry trucks. The U.S. automaker emerged from bankruptcy 40 days later thanks to a $52 billion taxpayer-funded bailout and sold shares in an initial public offering last November. Since exiting bankruptcy, GM said it has invested $3.4 billion in its U.S. plants, creating or retaining more than 9,000 jobs. The investment is not a surprise and by delaying the details of the specific plants affected GM maximizes the attention it will receive as it works to assure taxpayers the bailout was money well-spent, said Mirko Mikelic, senior portfolio manager with Fifth Third Asset Management. “They probably underinvested in some of these plants for the last few years,” said Mikelic, whose firm has held GM bonds and preferred securities in the past and still follows the stock. “They were keeping a handle on their cash. For years, in terms of R&D, they’ve been behind particularly Toyota.” The U.S. government still owns 32 percent of GM’s common shares and many investors see that as an overhang on the stock. Last month, sources said the Treasury could sell a significant portion of its GM shares by fall. GM shares were up 0.4 percent at $31.51 on Tuesday afternoon, compared with their IPO price last November of $33. (Additional reporting by Ben Klayman in Detroit, editing by Matthew Lewis) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Anthony A. Dreyspool Joins Brock Fiduciary Services

May 10, 2011

NEW YORK, NY–(Marketwire – May 10, 2011) – Anthony A. Dreyspool has joined Brock Fiduciary Services LLC , a provider of independent fiduciary services to employee benefit plans and others. Dreyspool has 30 years experience as a lawyer specializing in legal matters involving ERISA fiduciary matters, including management of employee benefit plan assets. He is the founder and owner of Park Avenue Presentations, a producer of webinar conferences on ERISA and other topics and the author of ERISA Fiduciary Law for Non-Lawyers. He was for 15 years the chief ERISA attorney for The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, and is a former partner of DLA Piper LLP and a former of counsel to Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP.

Read the full article →

McDonald’s Sales Jump Thanks To Higher Prices

May 9, 2011

LOS ANGELES/CHICAGO (Lisa Baertlein and Jessica Wohl) – McDonald’s Corp posted a better-than-expected 6 percent rise in April sales at established restaurants, helped by menu price increases that helped offset higher costs for beef and other ingredients. Shares in the world’s biggest hamburger chain rose almost 1 percent in early trading on Monday, after it reported that April sales at restaurants open at least 13 months were up 4 percent in the United States. Same-restaurant sales rose 6.5 percent in Europe and 6.5 percent in its Asia/Pacific, Middle East and Africa (APMEA) unit, reflecting strong results from China and Australia and a surprise rebound in Japan — which is still recovering from a massive earthquake. Analysts were expecting U.S. sales to rise 3.3 percent. They also expected a 5.1 percent rise in Europe and a gain of 2.7 percent in APMEA, Jefferies & Co analyst Andy Barish said in a client note. The company in March put through a 1 percent menu price rise in the United States, where it plans additional increases. Prices in Europe are up by the same amount, and the company plans to raise prices in China. “McDonald’s top line momentum is going to hold up just fine,” especially with the price increases, said Morningstar analyst R.J. Hottovy. The bigger question, he added, is how much the aggressive rise in food costs will pressure margins. McDonald’s expects food costs to rise between 4 percent and 4.5 percent in the United States and Europe this year. Europe is McDonald’s biggest market, contributing roughly 40 percent of sales, and the United States is a close No. 2 at around 35 percent of sales. McDonald’s generally has an edge over rivals when it comes to raising prices because it attracts a higher-income diner than other fast-food chains — particularly in Europe. Analysts say it would have the least resistance if it boosted prices on premium burgers and McCafe drinks that appeal to those customers. In addition to advertising pricier products such as new beverages, McDonald’s has been catering to budget-conscious diners with its value menu. The chain’s broad appeal may give it an edge over smaller chains, such as Wendy’s/Arby’s Group Inc or Jack in the Box Inc, Hottovy said. Many analysts believe that the company’s top priority is getting more customers through the door. “We believe the company will be judicious with menu pricing and focus on traffic gains,” Barish said. McDonald’s shares were up 68 cents at $79.38 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. (Reporting by Brad Dorfman, Lisa Baertlein and Jessica Wohl; Editing by Derek Caney and John Wallace) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

UPDATE: American College of Education Names Sandra J. Doran President

May 9, 2011

CHICAGO, IL–(Marketwire – May 9, 2011) – American College of Education has named Sandra J. Doran as its new president. Ms. Doran brings extensive academic and fiscal experience to the position, and embodies the ideals of learning and innovation that lie at the heart of the College’s mission. Most recently, she served as chief of staff/vice president and general counsel at Lesley University in Cambridge, MA, a position she held since 2004. Lesley is among the 10 largest master’s degree programs in the United States, offering programs at its Cambridge and Boston campuses and at more than 150 sites in 26 states. While at Lesley, Ms. Doran’s responsibilities included mergers and acquisitions, board development, strategic planning, facilities acquisitions, risk management, compliance, and financial growth.

Read the full article →

King & Spalding Strengthens Global Competition/Antitrust Practice With Addition of Suzanne Rab, a Cartel, Market Investigations and Merger Control Expert, in London

May 9, 2011

LONDON–(Marketwire – May 9, 2011) – Suzanne Rab, a competition lawyer who worked on some of the highest-profile cartel, market and merger control investigations in Europe and the UK, has joined King & Spalding as a partner in its London office, the firm announced today. She is expected to play a pivotal role in the build out of King & Spalding’s global competition practice in the UK and Europe, complementing its strong base in the United States. Rab joins King & Spalding from Hogan Lovells, where she was co-leader of its antitrust compliance group.

Read the full article →

Dave Johnson: China Tells U.S. to Mind Our Own Business — And We Should

May 7, 2011

China’s Vice Finance Minister lectured US administration officials about our debt and told us to mind our own business when it comes to China’s currency manipulation. It is about time the United States started minding our own business by taking steps to protect our business and bring manufacturing and jobs back home. Leading up to next week’s US-China Strategic And Economic Dialogue , China’s Vice Finance Minister Zhu Guangyao butted into our business and told the US we should reduce our debt. He also told us to keep out of their business and not bother them about their currency manipulation. In the story ” China Paying ‘Close Attention’ to U.S. Debate on Increasing Debt Ceiling ,” Bloomberg News reports, “We are paying close attention to the domestic discussion in the U.S. on debt and deficits,” Zhu told reporters in Beijing today. “We hope the U.S. can take effective measures toward fiscal reorganization just as President Obama suggested.” [. . .] Zhu also said that currency policy is the “sovereign right” of every country. China says currency manipulation is their “sovereign right.” They say we should mind our own business. But they insist that “free trade” means America does not have a right to mind our own business and protect our own workers, companies and jobs. It’s Time To Mind Our Own Business It is time to finally mind our business and take action. For decades the United States has refused to mind our business by pursuing “free trade” policies that allow other countries to engage in all kinds of trade schemes, while we just sit back and let them. Our leaders have not protected American workers, companies and jobs, instead sending them out of the country. We are told that the resulting “low prices” at Wal-Mart justify letting manufacturing move out of the country. It is time for us to mind our business, and engage in our own sovereign duty to protect American companies, workers and jobs from the trade manipulations and schemes others engage in. It is time to hold countries like China and Germany accountable for the damage done to our businesses by their mercantilist trade policies. Trade barriers, currency manipulation, even outright extortion – demanding that our companies transfer proprietary technologies and processes if they want to do business selling into other countries — has cost us factory after factory, job after job and company after company. As an example of how this has worked, in 2008 George Bush made the following argument for a trade treaty with Columbia, In other words, the current situation is one-sided. Our markets are open to Colombia products, but barriers exist to make it harder to sell American products in Colombia. I think it makes sense to remedy this situation. President Bush wasn’t saying he was going to do something about the one-sided arrangement and hold Colombia accountable, he was saying that since we just let Colombia do this to us, therefore we need to reward them with a free-trade treaty that gus American jobs even more! But why not just mind our business and stop it? All we really have to do is tell Colombia we are going to do what they do, until they stop doing that, start paying workers a decent wage and protecting their safety and rights. Why China Really Cares The fearmeisters say China is concerned that we might not meet our debt obligations. This is not at all what China is concerned about. China holds $1.15 trillion in Treasuries, accumulated as they sell goods to us, and don’t let us sell goods to them . What they are concerned about is that our currency might drop, which will help bring factories and jobs back to America. From the Bloomberg story, “Reduced U.S. fiscal spending may lead to a higher possibility of the U.S. dollar appreciation, therefore it helps China to maintain the value of the U.S. debt it holds,” said Li Jun, a Shanghai-based strategist at Central China Securities Holdings. Their concern about our debt is really just about keeping their currency low, which gives goods made in China a huge price advantage in world markets. Let Trade Be Trade It is time to mind our business and mind our businesses. It is time to take action on mercantilism and currency manipulation. It is time to stop China and others from flooding our markets with goods made without the wage, safety and environmental protections that democracy provides. Let trade be trade. Trade is supposed to be about trading . It is not supposed to just be a scheme to drive wages and living standards down by packing up factories and moving them across borders. It is not supposed to be “take a pay cut and a cut in benefits or we’ll move your job.” It is not supposed to be “well, we have something called globalization now so everyone should expect to be poorer and poorer every year.” Trade is supposed to be we buy what they make and they use the money we pay them to buy things we make. And then we use the money they paid us to buy things made there. And then they use the money we paid them to buy things made here. It is supposed to go on like that, and everyone does better and better. Better and better, not poorer and poorer. It really is time to mind our own business and tell countries that can’t sell to us until they meet our conditions. Which is just what they do to us. 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 →

Tina Wells: The Coming of the Global Mobile

May 7, 2011

Millennials have grown up in this world of instanity, where information, photos, and prices (when they’re shopping) are just one click away. They are also just a security checkpoint and a passport stamp away from almost anywhere in the world, where they can witness firsthand how cultures all over the globe listen (and create) their music and tuck their jeans into their sneakers. How are today’s marketers supposed to keep up with that? How do you keep product available for online distribution when you’re not sure what the next big thing will be — when a hot new item could explode overnight? How do you know how much product to keep in local retail stores when more and more Millennials are shopping online? These supply and demand issues are just the logistical tip of the iceberg in a mountain of marketing issues for making your brand appeal to today’s Global Mobiles. There are things that every product or service can do to make itself more appealing on a global level. First, you have to create a brand with global values. For example, we know that Warholism (the idea that anyone can be famous) is a major trend in the United States, but is it also taking hold abroad? Is reality TV as big in other countries as it currently is here? These are questions you have to ask. What are examples of global values? Things like love, happiness, style, and convenience all play on a global landscape. Second, you must have a recognizable logo. Think about the companies that consistently make it onto Interbrand’s list of the top 10 global brands: Coca-Cola, IBM, Google, Microsoft, and McDonald’s, to name a few. All have recognizable symbols. Think about what your logo signifies to people all over the world. While product names are another element, this area is less restricted since it’s the brand identity that matters most. I love the oft-cited marketing case study of the Chevy Nova, which supposedly sold poorly in Spanish-speaking countries because “no va” literally translates to “no go”. The truth, however, is that the Nova actually performed quite well in some Spanish-speaking countries, such as Argentina, Mexico, and Venezuela. While it’s great marketing fodder, it’s simply not a true story. The truth is that more attention needs to be paid to overall branding approaches, since (as I’ve said several times before) brands that focus on creating loyal groups of consumers and on providing product value can pretty much get through any crisis, complete with customer forgiveness. Third, you should not even think about creating a global brand if your customers cannot instantly connect with you. This connection should happen through a company web site and social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, Clikthrough, and whatever other online experience is hot at that time. If you want to be global, you must be instant; there is no getting around this. However, an important distinction is that being instant doesn’t mean that you can’t be exclusive. Just look at a brand like Louis Vuitton. It’s extremely exclusive; it’s even been known to allow only a few people into its stores at a time! The company sells its products at select retail locations, and it produces only limited quantities. Yet the brand is everywhere — Twitter, Facebook, and, of course, the company web site. Louis Vuitton spokespeople are athletes, models, activists — people from every walk of life. This company understands the art of the global connection. The fourth point for global brands to keep in mind is that traditional retail locations may not offer you the best solution. Pop-up stores are becoming increasingly popular these days, which might be an effect of the recession, since many malls and shops have tons of empty, available spaces. However, these stores aren’t limited just to malls. Magazines are taking advantage of the trend as well, and publications like Teen Vogue and Self are providing brands with opportunities to interact with their consumers in new and exciting ways. Trade shows and live events also allow consumers to interact with the items that they love. Remember, it’s about the connection, not just the visit to a traditional store. Finally, you have to look for trends globally, not just what’s happening in New York or California. The key to successful brands like Coca-Cola and hip retailer Urban Outfitters is that they are able to track trends globally while applying that information locally. A brand like Abercrombie & Fitch, for example, which is losing some of its U.S. popularity, has found a loyal fan base abroad, where the all American look plays well. Similarly, this country has imported many of its favorite reality shows from abroad; American Idol , Dancing with the Stars , and Big Brother were all launched in England before they were hits in the United States. We even see some universal, cross- cultural values in these shows. Whether you’re American or British, you still love dancing, singing, and family. These have global appeal. Now that we know what matters, it’s important to explore how this new breed of Millennials — or global mobiles, as I like to call them — will buy and consume products. It’s equally important to know which brands are on their radar. That is a topic for a future post!

Read the full article →

More U.S. Oil Drilling Won’t Lower Gas Prices, Experts Say

May 6, 2011

WASHINGTON — Republicans used the politically potent argument about the cost of gas Thursday to pass a bill expanding offshore oil and gas exploration. But analysts say there’s a major flaw in their case: More drilling will barely budge prices. The Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act , which passed 266 to 144 with 33 Democrats buying into the scheme, orders the Department of the Interior to move quickly to offer three leases to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and one off the coast of Virginia. The bill demands that the leases be executed by next year. But the legislation won’t reduce the price at the pump, experts said. Nor would a vastly more ambitious effort have much impact. “It’s not going to change the price of oil overnight, and it’s probably not going to have a huge impact on the price of oil ever,” said Mike Lynch of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, Inc. referring not just to those four leases, but to expanding all U.S. drilling. Yet House Republicans — backed by nearly three dozen Democrats — held out their push for exploitation of the four tracts as a panacea for the weak economy and high gas prices. “Republicans are standing with the American people, who want us to increase the supply of American energy that will lower costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create jobs here in America,” House Speaker John Boenher (R-Ohio) proudly declared . “And I’m certain –- with $4 per gallon gas -– the American people will remember who listened to them, and who didn’t.” “I think high gas prices and high energy costs are crushing jobs and are just unnecessary,” Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) told The Huffington Post. “When we have access to domestic resources, gas prices go down. That’s what happened in 2008 when Bush opened up the outer-continental shelf.” Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the bill’s lead sponsor, made the same argument Wednesday . “If we send a signal to the markets that we’re going to go after the resources that we have in this country,” he told bloggers on a conference call, “I think that will have a positive impact on driving the price of gasoline down. As a matter of fact, that happened in 2008.” But people who study oil markets for a living say they are they are wrong. “I would really doubt that that [2008 price drop] would have been because we committed to more drilling,” said Phyllis Martin, an analyst with the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which just released its detailed, annual outlook on energy supply and prices . “It was most likely the recession,” Martin explained. “When demand cuts back, the production cuts back and the prices fall.” As for opening four new drilling leases, that’s not even a drop in the bucket. Analyst Lynch said that, if the nation took an extremely vigorous stance on oil exploitation — and relaxed restrictions on the Gulf and drilled in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and off the coast of California, where America’s most easily accessible offshore oil is located — it still would not have much of an impact. “With the exception of the deep Gulf, where there are restrictions, people are drilling as fast as they can,” said Lynch, who regards himself as a moderate Republican. He is bearish on oil prices and believes the cost of crude will drop soon, regardless of an government policies. “You might, under really optimistic scenarios, over five or six years, add 2 million barrels a day of production,” said Lynch, who favors more drilling, even if he rejects the politicians’ arguments. “On a global scale, it’s significant. But we would still be big importers — we would still be dependent on foreign oil.” And prices would not move much because of it, the analysts explained. Oil is traded on a world market, and the United States does not have enough petroleum to increase the global supply, which would reduce demand — and thus the price — for fuel. “In 2009, the U.S. produced about 7 percent of what was produced in the entire world, so increasing the oil production in the U.S. is not going to make much of a difference in world markets and world prices,” said the EIA’s Martin. “It just gets lost. It’s not that much.” And boosting drilling in the outer continental shelf? “What comes out of the OCS is about 1 percent of the world total, and that’s not enough to affect world prices,” Martin said, even noting that she believes there are even more untapped reserves than officials can estimate at the moment. Republicans are right about some things, the experts agreed. More drilling would would mean more jobs and more tax revenue, if the industry’s subsidies and tax breaks were revoked. It could also reduce oil imports — even if gas prices wouldn’t drop. More offshore drilling, in fact, would be a huge boon for the oil and gas companies that could do it. “It would be a lot of money for a lot people, but it’s not going to make us energy independent,” said Lynch, the analyst. The oil and gas industry has poured $8.8 million into the campaigns of the drilling bill’s lead sponsors. Lynch wouldn’t rule out the idea of the United States becoming energy independent, someday, but rated the odds as slim. “On a scale of Osama bin Laden going to church with Pat Robertson — it’s close to that,” he said. What would bring down prices? In the short term, much broader market forces, such as those that prompted Thursday’s huge oil sell-off. Since the United States remains the largest consumer of petroleum, greater efficiency at home will help in the longer term. Lynch noted that President Barack Obama’s past campaign suggestion for Americans to keep their tires properly inflated actually had merit. “It sounds stupid, but he was right,” said Lynch, noting only half-jokingly that it might have paid during the recession to employ all the out-of-work lawyers as tire pressure readers at gas stations. The biggest factor that would drive down gas prices, though, would be more drilling around the world. “If you said, ‘let’s take the equipment and send it to Iraq, and build pipelines,’ that’s going to flood the market. The easiest oil is in Iraq,” Lynch said. He added that other rich supplies could be tapped “in a number of other places like Colombia or Argentina or Brazil.” And what would happen to world prices if America went all out on drilling? “It would not make the Saudi king stay up at night worrying about his revenue,” said Lynch. Sam Stein contributed to this report.

Read the full article →

The Return Of ‘Made In The USA’

May 5, 2011

NEW YORK (Nick Zieminski) – The “Made in the USA” label may be poised for a comeback, a new study argues. The next few years will bring a wave of reinvestment by U.S. multinational manufacturers in their home base, as rising wages and a strong yuan currency make China a less attractive production center, the paper by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) predicts. The study, published on Thursday, says U.S. reinvestment will accelerate as the United States becomes one of the cheapest locations for manufacturing in the developed world. If it came to fruition, such reinvestment could speed up a delicate economic recovery that has yet to gain much traction. There is evidence the trend has already started: * Caterpillar Inc has repatriated manufacturing of construction excavators, boosting investment in facilities in Texas, Arkansas and Illinois. * NCR Corp brought back production of automatic teller machines to Georgia, creating 870 jobs. * Toymaker Wham-O moved production of Frisbees and Hula-Hoops from China and Mexico to the United States. More such announcements are likely over the next year or two, BCG says, citing conversations with clients. “If you work the math out using today’s numbers. you’d still say it’s a good idea to go to China,” said Hal Sirkin, a senior BCG partner and lead author of the study. “(But) around 2015, you get to a point of indifference between producing in the U.S. and producing in China.” Wages in China are still a fraction of what U.S. workers earn. Direct pay and benefits for production workers in the United States are about $22 per hour, versus only about $2 in China, roughly 9 percent of the U.S. cost. But that difference is expected to narrow, with the Chinese worker earning about 17 percent as much as his or her U.S. counterpart four years from now. Factoring in higher U.S. productivity rates, the weaker U.S. dollar and other factors, such as shipping costs, that difference could narrow further. “MADE IN THE USA” The study predicts China will remain a major global player — just less of an exporter to the United States. China will still export to Europe, whose workers are less able to move for jobs than U.S. workers are. U.S. wage advantages could eventually reach the point that European automakers will export U.S.-made cars to Europe, the study said. The appeal of a shorter supply chain and fewer headaches from issues like intellectual property will also help encourage jobs and production to come back to the United States, BCG said. Policy could also nudge manufacturers to make the move. High unemployment is driving state incentives to attract factories, while unions are becoming more flexible. Still, the study’s thesis is based on assumptions that may not play out. One is that supply and demand of labor in China are increasingly moving out of balance. Another is that demand from a growing Chinese middle class will raise costs, as factories shift to producing for domestic consumption and workers demand more pay to pay for goods that were out of reach before. Also, the yuan’s rally could reverse. Since China first loosened restrictions on trading the yuan, its value has steadily strengthened from more than 8 yuan to the U.S. dollar in 2005 to fewer than 6.5 per dollar now. The expected U.S. reinvestment, meanwhile, will affect some industries more than others. Shoes or clothing are work-intensive and do not require highly skilled labor. But higher-value goods made in lower volumes, such as home appliances and construction equipment, are more likely to bear the “Made in the USA” label in coming years — especially if they are large and expensive to ship. General Electric Co’s example supports the study’s contentions. GE’s appliance unit is in the middle of a four-year, $600 million plan to build up its manufacturing presence in Louisville, Kentucky, adding some 830 new jobs. “The default has been to say: ‘Let’s put the next plant in China,’” Sirkin said. “We’re saying: ‘Sit back and think through your options.’” BCG is a management consulting firm that advises large manufacturers on issues ranging from strategy to operations. (Additional reporting by Scott Malone in Boston, editing by Gerald E. McCormick) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

Chinese Tech Giants Fight Over 4G Phones

May 5, 2011

BEIJING — Two of China’s biggest technology companies have launched a court battle in Europe over mobile phone patents in a rare public clash between firms Beijing is promoting as national champions. The fight between Huawei Technologies Ltd. and ZTE Corp. highlights the challenge for communist leaders who need to manage Chinese corporate ambitions as they try to create global competitors in telecoms, energy and other fields. It is the first case of its kind between major Chinese companies, which usually settle disputes in private. “We’re going to see more of this in this industry and others,” said David Wolf, a technology marketing consultant in Beijing. “The government will find, wow, we’ve got these national champions, but now they’re trying to kill each other.” The dispute centers on fourth-generation mobile technology, which companies that are developing it say will deliver more stable connections, wireless broadband and other advances. It is in limited use in the United States and being tested elsewhere. Control of key patents could help decide which equipment suppliers are positioned to reap billions of dollars in sales once it is rolled out in other markets. Huawei and ZTE make network gear, the core of phone systems. They have multibillion-dollar annual sales in China, Africa and Latin America and see themselves as potential global 4G leaders. That fits with Communist Party hopes to transform China from a low-cost factory into a creator of profitable technology. Huawei announced last week it filed patent infringement lawsuits against ZTE in France, Germany and Hungary. ZTE rejected the claims and said it has asked a French court and Chinese regulators to invalidate a Huawei patent. Huawei and ZTE are among China’s first wave of fledgling multinational companies. They compete with Nokia-Siemens Networks, Ericsson and Alcatel-Lucent and have a small but growing U.S. and European presence. Their dispute comes amid mounting complaints by foreign business groups about Beijing’s industrial policy. They say China is improperly supporting favored companies by limiting market access and providing low-cost loans and other support. Huawei’s lawsuits accuse ZTE of infringing patents for data cards and improperly using a Huawei-registered trademark on some of its products. “We will do whatever is required to ensure that the use of Huawei’s intellectual property by any company is based on internationally accepted protocols and practices,” said Huawei’s chief legal officer, Song Liuping, in a statement. ZTE said its lawsuit accused Huawei of infringing its 4G patents. The company said it also has asked a French court and China’s State Intellectual Property Office to invalidate Huawei’s patents for a rotary USB connector used to exchange data between devices. “ZTE respects the intellectual property rights of other companies, but it will not stop protecting its own intellectual property rights,” said a company statement. Huawei, founded in 1987 by a former Chinese military engineer, has 110,000 employees and reported 2010 revenues of 182 billion yuan ($28 billion). ZTE, founded in 1985, has 70,000 workers and reported 2010 revenues of 70 billion yuan ($10.8 billion). Their status as industry leaders gives both high-level political influence. But Chinese leaders want both to succeed – a possible reason for a stalemate and the decision to go to court. An impartial ruling by a European court also might add to the winner’s appeal for potential customers by reinforcing its status as a technology creator, rather than a Chinese policy tool. “They are making an interesting statement by filing those lawsuits not in Chinese courts but overseas, because Chinese courts are perceived to be very political, and they want this matter obviously adjudicated on the legal merits,” said Wolf, CEO of Wolf Group Asia. Huawei and ZTE are unusual among major Chinese companies because they compete directly with each other, offering similar products in the same markets. Authorities who want China’s potential global companies to focus their competitive energies on foreign rivals have tried to head off clashes in other industries by assigning different markets or products to individual enterprises. In aerospace, a plan to create a homegrown jetliner to compete with Boeing Co. and Airbus Industrie was assigned to one state-owned company while a potential rival was told to develop a smaller regional jet instead. Huawei has suffered setbacks as it tries to expand in the United States. It was forced in February to unwind its acquisition of 3Leaf Systems, a maker of cloud computing technology, after it failed to win approval from a U.S. security panel. In a separate case, Huawei won a court order that temporarily blocked the sale of Motorola Solutions Inc.’s network business to rival Nokia-Siemens Networks. Huawei said the deal might reveal business secrets because Motorola sold Huawei equipment. Motorola settled with Huawei for an undisclosed fee. Also this month, Ericsson said it has filed lawsuits against ZTE in Britain, Germany and Italy accusing the company of infringing patents for handset and network technology. The Swedish company asked the courts to block ZTE from selling mobile phones that contain the disputed technology and some network products. ___ Array Array

Read the full article →

American College of Education Names Sandra J. Doran President

May 5, 2011

CHICAGO, IL–(Marketwire – May 4, 2011) – American College of Education has named Sandra J. Doran as its new president. Ms. Doran brings extensive academic and fiscal experience to the position, and embodies the ideals of learning and innovation that lie at the heart of the College’s mission. Most recently, she served as chief of staff/vice president and general counsel at Lesley University in Cambridge, MA, a position she held since 2004. Lesley is among the 10 largest master’s degree programs in the United States, offering programs at its Cambridge and Boston campuses and at more than 150 sites in 26 states. While at Lesley, Ms. Doran’s responsibilities included mergers and acquisitions, board development, strategic planning, facilities acquisitions, risk management, compliance, and financial growth.

Read the full article →

Corporations That Got Massive Tax Breaks Spent Millions In 2010 Elections

May 3, 2011

This story has been updated. WASHINGTON — The top five recipients of federal corporate tax breaks are also among the biggest spenders in the U.S. political system — they shelled out a combined $7.86 million in campaign contributions during the 2010 elections (in political action committee and individual employee contributions), according to analysis from the New York City Public Advocate’s office. Bill de Blasio, the public advocate, is now calling on these companies to verify that no taxpayer dollars will be used in future election spending, warning such a move could “carry financial risk to the [companies'] bottom line.” De Blasio, a Democrat, has aggressively gone after campaign finance accountability and successfully used his bully pulpit to convince several Wall Street firms not to spend any corporate dollars on political advertising . According to the analysis by de Blasio’s office, ExxonMobil, Bank of America, General Electric (GE), Chevron and Boeing had combined profits of $77.16 billion in 2010 but paid $0 in federal income taxes in their latest filing. At the same time, they gave a combined $7.86 million in political contributions during the 2010 election cycle — a 7 percent jump over their 2008 political spending. Charts via the Office the Public Advocate: According to the Center for Responsive Politics, all five of these companies ranked among the top 100 biggest political spenders between 1989 and 2010, with Chevron and ExxonMobil giving more heavily to Republicans, and the other three corporations generally balancing donations between the two parties. In 2010 alone , Boeing ranked 28th in political giving (“on the fence” in political leanings), GE ranked 30th (“leans Democratic”), Bank of America ranked 37th (“leans Republican”) and ExxonMobil ranked 93rd (“strongly Republican”). Chevron was not in the top 100 overall donors for the year. “[Corporate] tax breaks were put in place to promote growth and create jobs, not bankroll the political causes of corporate executives,” said de Blasio in a statement. “The unencumbered and anonymous spending in elections let loose by the Citizens United ruling has opened the door for a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. No company that can afford to spend millions of dollars to influence our elections should be pleading poverty come tax time.” The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Citizens United cleared the way for a federal court’s decision in Speechnow.org v. FEC , which opened the floodgates for unlimited election spending by certain independent political groups, as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political candidates or party committees. These groups can raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations and unions. Thanks to the ruling, the five companies could have contributed even more than the $7.86 million than was disclosed in 2010. De Blasio sent letters to the heads of each of the corporations, expressing concern over the use of their federal tax credits. He urged each company to “ensure full disclosure of its political spending to demonstrate that these funds and other corporate treasury dollars are not being used for political spending and electioneering.” He also asked all of them except GE to adopt policies that prohibit their trade association dues from being used for political contributions and electioneering. His office is also launching a campaign to ask the public to email ExxonMobil and urge the company to “adopt the proposed shareholder resolution on disclosure of political spending,” which will be considered at the company’s May 25 shareholders meeting. In response to de Blasio’s statement, ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers told The Huffington Post in an email that the company complies with all tax laws and disclosure requirements. He also addressed some criticism of ExxonMobil’s federal taxes. “Recent media reports have highlighted efforts by lawmakers to end economy-wide tax deductions for U.S. oil companies that were established to support manufacturing jobs in the United States and prevent U.S. companies from paying double taxation on income earned outside the country,” Jeffers wrote. “ExxonMobil is one of the largest taxpayers in the United States,” he added. “During the first quarter of this year, on earnings of $2.6 billion in the United States, we incurred U.S. tax expenses of $3.1 billion.” Boeing held its shareholders meeting on Monday and according to a spokesman, 67 percent of shareholders voted with the management against publishing amounts contributed to trade associations. The company already publishes its other political contributions online . “Like most of its competitors, Boeing does not publish amounts contributed to trade associations or otherwise mandate disclosure of funds spent for non-political purposes that are later used by the third parties to support political activity,” reads the Board of Directors’ statement in opposition . It cites problems with potentially revealing corporate strategy to competitors through this information and problems in compelling third parties to reveal whether they used Boeing-contributed funds for political purposes. GE spokesman Andrew Williams sent a statement that, like Exxon’s, did not address the issue of political contributions and also took exception to media reports on the company’s tax liability. “We will file our 2010 tax returns by September,” he wrote to The Huffington Post. “We expect to have a small federal income tax liability. In 2010, GE paid significant federal income taxes for prior years. We also paid about $1 billion in 2010 in other state, local and federal taxes in the U.S.” Williams said the company’s federal tax rate was low in 2010 because the company “lost billions of dollars in GE Capital, our financial arm, as a result of the global financial crisis. Similarly, in 2009 GE Capital’s losses were so large that the total company lost money on its U.S. operations.” He added that GE expects its tax rate will be higher in 2011 as GE Capital recovers. In March, however, GE told shareholders that the company expected to get back a $3.2 billion tax benefit from the federal government. Last year, Bank of America agreed to begin publishing a summary of its political donations online . “We comply with all state and federal campaign regulations,” said Bank of America spokesman Jerry Dubrowski. “Our policy is not to make corporate contributions to candidates for public office.” In a statement, Chevron wrote, “Chevron is committed to adhering to the highest standards of ethics and transparency in engaging in any political contributions. We have strict policies and internal approval processes so that decision making and reporting on political contributions comply with the letter and spirit of all applicable laws. A list of corporate contributions made during 2010 is available on Chevron.com.” It also defended its taxes, stating, “Between 1998 and 2008, the oil and gas industry paid $1 trillion in total income taxes. … In 2010, Chevron, as an example, paid $12.9 billion in taxes on pretax income of $32.1 billion, or an effective tax rate of 40 percent.” Large corporations that won’t be paying any federal income taxes have faced fierce bipartisan criticism in recent weeks. Former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold, who now runs the Progressives United political action committee , launched a campaign pressuring GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt on the issue. And in April, there were massive protests in Washington state over the Democratic-controlled legislature proposing cuts to public programs over closing corporate tax loopholes. For the past month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been publicly shaming what he calls the ” worst corporate income tax avoiders ” in an effort to share the burden of deficit reduction more equally, rather than letting it fall more on programs that assist low-income and middle-class individuals. The top five federal corporate tax break recipients have been particular targets of Sanders’ campaign. The piece was updated with Chevron’s statement. It was amended to clarify that the company political donations are from PACs and individual employees to reflect that the tax figures are from the companies’ latest filings

Read the full article →

BP To Pay $25 Million Penalty For Alaska Oil Spill

May 3, 2011

WASHINGTON – BP has agreed to pay a $25 million civil penalty plus interest to settle a federal investigation into a 2006 pipeline oil spill on Alaska’s North Slope, according to court papers filed on Tuesday. The oil spill in Alaska is one of several environmental and safety problems has beset BP in the United States in recent years, including a deadly explosion at an oil refinery in Texas that killed 15 workers and most recently last year’s historic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. To address the oil spill in Alaska, the company has “started implementation and operation of some corrective measures, including replacement of the Prudhoe Bay oil transit lines, improved leak detection on the oil transit lines, and improved operation and maintenance of the Pipeline System,” the proposed consent decree said. U.S. officials are expected to announce the settlement later on Tuesday. BP’s stock was down about 1 percent in both New York and London. The fine is small by oil industry standards at just $25 million. The penalty is the result of BP violating the Clean Water Act when it spilled crude oil in waters on the North Slope of Alaska in the spring and summer of 2006. The government said the company also violated the Clean Air Act when it improperly removed asbestos-containing materials from its pipelines during the same period. BP also failed to perform certain corrective actions on its pipelines as ordered by the federal pipeline safety agency. (Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky and James Vicini; additional reporting by Tom Doggett; Editing by David Gregorio and Lisa Shumaker) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

The Worst Corporate Reputations In America

May 3, 2011

A company’s reputation is formed not only by the products it sells, but by the decisions it makes in times of crises. For some, that’s a good thing. For others, some present on this list, not so much. Using survey results, market research firm Harris Interactive has compiled a list of the U.S. companies with the best and worst reputations. For the 12th Annual Harris Interactive U.S. Reputation Quotient Survey roughly 30,000 Americans were asked to rate the 60 most visible companies in the United States based on six factors: financial performance, products and services, workplace environment, vision and leadership, social responsibility, and emotional appeal. Combining these factors, Harris tallied a total RQ Score. Scoring above 80, for reference, indicates a company’s reputation is “excellent.” Overall, companies in this year’s survey ranked higher than the previous year, with 16 companies rated as “excellent” compared to only six last year. Tech companies, in general, seem to have the best reputations, while financial and oil companies have the worst. Notorious scandals like the BP Gulf Oil Spill and Goldman Sachs’s role in the subprime crisis seem to have lingered in American minds, and companies with the worst reputations scored especially poorly when rated on whether they have “high ethical standards” and could be “trusted to do the right thing.” Car companies largely fell somewhere in the middle, but that could change in the coming years. General Motors and Chrysler, while stuck in the bottom 11 this year, did make the third and fourth highest gains on the list, respectively, of any company. Below are the 11 companies with the worst corporate reputations:

Read the full article →

State-Owned Firms, Not Currency, Is Biggest Chinese Threat, Business Group Says

May 3, 2011

WASHINGTON (Doug Palmer) – The United States should focus less on China’s currency practices and more on the threat to U.S. companies posed by Beijing’s support for state-owned enterprises, a business group said on Monday. China has used regulatory and other barriers to promote “domestic champions” in high-tech areas such as electric cars, green energy and high-speed rail, officials with the American Chamber of Commerce in China told Reuters. Many state-owned firms are of “a scale now that they can expand internationally and can win business from American companies and other foreign firms, not only in China but potentially overseas,” said Ted Dean, the group’s chairman. Instead of pressuring China to raise the value of its yuan currency against the dollar, the United States should be going after market access barriers that prevent American companies from competing fairly in Chinese market, Dean said. China, for its own internal reasons, already recognizes it need to revalue the yuan even if it is not moving as quickly as the United States would like, he added. The business group is in Washington to meet with members of Congress and the Obama administration before high-level U.S.-China talks next week on economic and geopolitical concerns. U.S. frustrations over China’s exchange rate policies are expected on the agenda, with Congress threatening once again to pass legislation to force Beijing to revalue. Many U.S. lawmakers accuse China of deliberately undervaluing its currency to give its companies an unfair price advantage in international trade. That’s a dangerous preoccupation because “by focusing on that issue they allow China to get away with a hundred other industrial policies that are probably more disturbing for American business,” said James McGregor, a senior counselor at APCO Worldwide who advises the American Chamber. “It takes the focus off the big picture and looks for a simple answer to a complicated question,” McGregor said. China uses a number of discriminatory policies aimed at promoting domestic innovation that prevent foreign companies from competing on a level playing field against Chinese companies, the industry officials said. With China’s entry into the World Trade Organization nearly a decade ago, “it’s past time for China to return to a policy of opening markets,” said Christian Murck, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in China. “With respect to state-owned enterprises, one of the most things would be for them to join the WTO Government Procurement Agreement.” That pact requires countries to treat foreign suppliers of goods and services for the public sector as favorably as domestic companies and requires laws and regulations related to government procurement be transparent and fair. The United States and China should also finish long-delayed talks on a bilateral investment treaty, he said. A major U.S. government effort to boost the competitiveness of American industry would also help, Murck said. (Reporting by Doug Palmer; Editing by Christopher Wilson) Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

U.S. Corporations Pay Average Amounts Of Taxes Despite High Rates

May 3, 2011

The United States may soon wind up with a distinction that makes business leaders cringe — the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

Read the full article →

Big Banks Face Criticism For Their Speculative Role In Global Food Crisis

May 2, 2011

Today, rising food prices are reeking havoc in the developing world. While some blame overpopulation, and others ethanol, another culprit has emerged of late: banks and the role of speculative commodity indexes. The primary danger of the indexes, according to a new article by Frederick Kaufman in Foreign Policy , is that they fundamentally alter the food market by transforming key stapes into a financial asset that performs more or less like a stock. So while billions worldwide scramble to find money pay for food, food prices are often subject to intensified distortions of supply and demand from speculative markets. Since 1999, when the government first deregulated the commodities market, Kaufmann explains, investors have flocked to investing in food. The basis for that excitement is a Goldman Sachs-developed innovation known as the commodity index. Today, Kaufmann says, it’s a tool that has been replicated throughout the banking industry. The excitement over commodities trading has only picked up in the years since the financial crisis first brought the world economy — and the U.S. housing bubble — to its knees. That, Kaufmann says , was when this really kicked off: “The money tells the story. Since the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000, there has been a 50-fold increase in dollars invested in commodity index funds. To put the phenomenon in real terms: In 2003, the commodities futures market still totaled a sleepy $13 billion. But when the global financial crisis sent investors running scared in early 2008, and as dollars, pounds, and euros evaded investor confidence, commodities — including food — seemed like the last, best place for hedge, pension, and sovereign wealth funds to park their cash… In the first 55 days of 2008, speculators poured $55 billion into commodity markets, and by July, $318 billion was roiling the markets. Food inflation has remained steady since.” Criticism of this speculation has heated up in recent weeks, with the Asian Development Bank releasing a report critical of the trend and recommending the elimination of policies “that create hurdles in transferring food from surplus to deficit regions.” Last September, the United Nations Special Rapporteur On The Right To Food wrote that “a significant portion” of rising food prices was due to the role of speculation. And then last week, Barclays Capital, the United Kingdom’s biggest commodity trader according to World Development Movement , became the target of protests by anti-poverty groups. “First, it was sub-prime mortgages, now it’s food commodities,” Deborah Doane, director of the World Development Movement, said, according to the Guardian . “The lack of transparency in these markets bears worrying resemblance to the behaviour that led to the 2008 financial crash.” Regardless of the reason, there is no denying that rising food prices have had a tangible affect around the globe. In mid-April, the World Bank reported that with food prices rising 36 percent from last year, at least 44 million people worldwide have been pushed into poverty since last June. With 1.2 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day, even small food price shocks can be devastating. Read the full Foreign Policy piece here.

Read the full article →

Dean Baker: Why Does Senator McCaskill Want to Bankrupt Our Children?

May 2, 2011

That is what people should be asking Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill along with her fellow senators who are advocated strict caps on government spending. The idea being pushed by Senator McCaskill, together with Tennessee Senator Bob Corker and several other prominent senators, would limit federal spending to 20.6 percent of GDP. It would require difficult to obtain super-majorities to exceed this cap. Spending would be cut across a variety of programs if the cap is not reached. This proposal is hugely deserving of ridicule for a variety of reasons. First, it operates from a blatantly wrong premise – that government spending has grown out of control. Those familiar with arithmetic know that government spending had increased by little as a share of GDP prior to the downturn caused by the collapse of the housing bubble. In 2007, the last year before the onset of the recession, spending as a share of GDP was 19.6 percent. That is 1.1 percentage points less than the 20.7 percent share 30 years earlier in 1977. So the idea that there is a long-term trend of out of control spending is simply not true, or what they call outside of Washington, a “lie.” Spending has risen in the wake of the downturn, but this was not due to a flood of new and expensive government programs. It was overwhelmingly attributable to the expansion of safety net programs like unemployment compensation and Food Stamps and a decline in GDP, which raises the spending-to-GDP ratio even when spending remains constant. If McCaskill and the other senators are upset about this recent rise in spending then they should be going after the incompetents at the Fed and Treasury who somehow could not recognize the $8 trillion housing bubble whose collapse wrecked the economy. This was indeed a horrendous mistake that has been devastating to the country, but it has nothing to do with government spending. Over the long term government spending is projected to rise, but this also has nothing to do with the profligacy of Congress. There are two reasons for the projected increases in spending. The first is an aging population. As a result federal programs that provide for elderly like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will cost more money. The second reason is that health care costs are still rising out control. The United States already pays more than twice as much per person for health care as other wealthy countries. This disparity is projected to grow even larger in coming decades. If this proves true then it will both impose enormous costs on the private sector and lead to growing strains on the budget. By contrast, if health care costs were brought under control we would be looking at huge budget surpluses in the decades ahead. Of course controlling costs would mean confronting the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and other powerful lobbies. Unfortunately Senator McCaskill and her colleagues lack the courage to confront such powerful elites. In fact, McCaskill and her colleagues do not even have the courage to propose cuts for specific programs. Does McCaskill wants to cut Medicare, Social Security, Head Start, unemployment insurance? She won’t tell her constituents or the country. She just wants to cut generic spending. This one might sell well with the Wall Street crew, but it is incredibly bad policy. First off, any budget expert can quickly devise 100 ways to game spending caps, the most obvious being tax expenditures, where the government gives a tax break for items it wants to subsidize. This does not count as spending. More importantly, a strict limit on government spending that is binding would prove enormously costly because there are some things that the government does more efficiently than the private sector. Providing Medicare to retirees is one of the items in this category, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). CBO’s analysis of Representative Ryan’s plan for privatizing Medicare showed that having private insurers take over the Medicare program would add more than $34 trillion to its costs over its 75-year planning period, an amount that is almost seven times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall. CBO’s analysis implies that the Ryan plan, which was approved by the Republican House last month, would increase the cost of paying for retirement health care for someone turning 65 in 2022 (the first year the plan takes effect) by almost $170,000. This doesn’t count the cost transferred from the government to beneficiaries. This is pure waste associated with using a more inefficient private system rather than the public system. There is a similar story with Social Security. The administrative costs of privatized systems like those in the United Kingdom or Chile are 20-30 times as high as the administrative costs of the Social Security system in the United States. This would cost a typical retiree close to $40,000 in higher fees (which is income to the financial industry) that would come directly out of their retirement income. If Senator McCaskill and her colleagues really expect their caps to be binding then they must want to privatize either Social Security or Medicare or both. Arithmetic leaves few other options. By 2030, CBO projects that spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would take up 14.5 percent of GDP. If we assume, conservatively, interest payments of 3.0 percent of GDP, this brings us to 17.5 percent of GDP against a proposed cap of 20.6 percent. Any reasonable level of spending on the military, education, infrastructure, the environment and research and development would push the country far over the cap. This would leave little choice except to privatize Social Security and/or Medicare imposing an enormous and unnecessary burden on our children and grandchildren. The higher costs associated with privatized programs will leave all but the wealthiest workers struggling in retirement. Of course, the senators who want to impose this enormous burden on our children and grandchildren will mostly be enjoying a comfortable retirement themselves by the time the effects of their policy are being felt. In the meantime, they will have enjoyed the praise of the Wall Street crew and the elite media for having the courage to destroy the programs that the middle class depends upon. Welcome to Washington.

Read the full article →

Miles Jaffe: The Dollar Collapse

May 2, 2011

What explains the dramatic dollar decline over the past several months? Very simple: The Republican pledge of no new taxes. Outside of the United States — those selling the dollar — know full well that no modern national state can be run on revenues of less than 20 percent of GDP. No other large advanced country in the world is even attempting to do run its economy on tax revenues of less than 30 percent of its GDP. Yet in the past year, the Federal Government took in a stunning 15 percent of GDP while spending nearly 25 percent. This extraordinary gap was virtually required by the financial collapse of 2008. The gap was created by ever lower tax rates and resulting lower revenues, and by moneys poured out as economic stimulus to avoid economic collapse. Such Keynesian spending is justified, even mandated, because at a time of zero interest rates, only strong fiscal policy can offset deflationary dangers and avoid catastrophic consequences. But now as we all know, we have to face the deficit. Yes, we have to cut spending. But as a country supporting two wars, having a military presence in more than 100 countries, paying social security to our elderly, and supporting health care for the poor and the elderly, Federal revenues must rise to at least 20 percent. The Republicans have made clear that this is not going to happen. Yet even under Representative Ryan’s budget plan focusing only on spending cuts, Federal expenditures would exceed 20 percent of GDP. Unless you believe that somehow this Republican limit will be overcome, you have to conclude that the dollar is in trouble. The international financial world has reached that conclusion. Until the conclusion is reverse, holding the dollar does not make sense. It must decline.

Read the full article →