Group items tagged

American incomes rose in November for the fifth straight month, providing much-needed traction for economic recovery. The overall personal income earned by Americans rose by 0.4 percent in the month, according to numbers released by the Commerce Department Wednesday.That fueled a gain in consumer spending, which rose 0.5 percent from October.

American incomes rose in November for the fifth straight month, providing much-needed traction for economic recovery. The overall personal income earned by Americans rose by 0.4 percent in the month, according to numbers released by the Commerce Department Wednesday.That fueled a gain in consumer spending, which rose 0.5 percent from October.Another jolt of positive news: Consumer confidence rose in a December survey by the University of Michigan and Reuters.The picture is still not one of a brisk rebound for the economy. Much of the gain in incomes continues to come from government stimulus programs, and the gains in income and spending are smaller when inflation is taken into account. (Adjusting for inflation, personal income rose 0.2 percent in November. The gain was just 0.1 percent when the impact of government transfer payments is subtracted.)

Mr. Bethune predicts that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will rise in the fourth quarter at a 4 percent annual pace, up from the third quarter's 2.2 percent rate, which the government reported Monday.

And while most Americans understand this system to be badly broken already, the US Supreme Court this year ruled, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to permit unlimited spending by corporations and unions to influence elections. Indeed, early figures show that vastly more money is being spent to influence the outcome of our elections this fall – $4.2 billion in political ad spending alone compared with just $2.1 billion in 2008, according to Borrell Associates. Less than a third of organizations spending money on the fall elections thus far are disclosing their sources of funds, thereby denying citizens any knowledge of who is trying to influence the election.

As an important first step in reclaiming our elections and curbing the undue influence of special interests on our candidates, it is high time that Congress passed the Fair Elections Now Act, introduced in the House by my former colleagues Democrat John Larson of Connecticut and Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina. Modeled after successful Fair Elections programs in eight states, the proposed law would require that participating candidates turn down special interest money and accept only $100-or-less donations from their constituents. Candidates who reach a qualifying threshold of 1,500 in-state donations would then be eligible to receive sufficient matching funds to run a serious campaign. This would dramatically reduce the influence of special interests, including unions and corporations. And Fair Elections would open the election process to many more Americans who currently have no opportunity to seek public office for lack of funds.

Analyzing reported spending, the Washington Post finds that Republicans have spent at least $100,000 in 77 different congressional races (nearly twice the number of seats they need to gain control of the House), compared with 43 races in which Democrats have spent that much.Looked at across regions of the country, Republicans and their supporters are outspending their Democratic counterparts by 53 percent, the newspaper reports: $74.6 million to $39.7 million, based on Federal Election Commission filings. At the same time, millionaire and billionaire candidates – Republicans Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and Linda McMahon among them – are digging into their personal pocketbooks to battle their opponents on the airwaves.

Analyzing reported spending, the Washington Post finds that Republicans have spent at least $100,000 in 77 different congressional races (nearly twice the number of seats they need to gain control of the House), compared with 43 races in which Democrats have spent that much.

U.S. manufacturing firms spend almost three times as much per worker per hour for healthcare as our most important foreign competitors--$2.38 versus $0.96. Healthcare costs drive employers to move jobs overseas, grow jobs outside of the United States, and limit the ability of firms to invest to improve productivity [and] compete more effectively in the future.

Analysis also shows that the U.S. economy loses as much as $207 billion annually because of the lost productivity stemming from the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. Employers notice the workplace productivity loss, which for a full-time worker equals four days a month in lost work time.

On the budget front, the House bill would reduce deficits by $138 billion over the next decade and the Senate measure would reduce deficits by $130 billion over that period, says the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which predicts the two measures would continue to reduce deficits for at least a decade thereafter. The bills would achieve this goal through a combination of spending cuts (largely in Medicare) and tax increases that, together, exceed the costs of bringing health insurance coverage to about 95 percent of all legal residents. The House and Senate bills deserve much more credit for cost control than they have received. They [address] almost all areas that experts have identified as promising areas for reducing the growth of healthcare spending. Most important, both would create a health insurance exchange to promote competition among private health insurance plans based on price and quality, reduce administrative costs, and provide a platform for systemic change across the healthcare system.

The high court also upheld a more sweeping disclosure requirement. Any corporation spending more than $10,000 a year on electioneering efforts must publicly disclose the names of individual contributors.

The Supreme Court did not jettison all campaign finance restrictions. Corporations and unions are still prohibited from making direct contributions to federal candidates. Such contributions must be made either by individuals or through regulated political action committees.In addition, although corporations may now spend money to make a political point during election season, the high court has strongly endorsed – by an 8-to-1 vote – disclaimer and disclosure requirements within the federal campaign finance law.That means that when corporations place a political ad on television or radio within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, it must include the disclaimer: "______ is responsible for the content of this advertising."This disclaimer requirement may deter many corporations from engaging in the kind of vicious political attack ads that some analysts suggest will now become commonplace.

Whether Democrats can keep control of the House in the 2010 election hinges on three things: the direction of job growth, Democrats' ability to convince independent voters that the country’s finances are not out of control, and the direction of Barack Obama’s approval ratings.

Podesta argued that no one unemployment figure will be a “magic number” for Democrats' political success. Instead, if by the summer of 2010 the number of jobs in the economy is growing consistently, then Democrats in Congress can hold the loss of seats “to a relative minimum,” he said. One question, he added, is “do people smell we are on the right path or do they feel still bogged down?”

For Democrats to demonstrate that control, Podesta argued in favor of a timetable to put the federal budget back in balance. “Once the economy is fully recovered, deficit reduction will be critical to growth and broadly shared prosperity,” he said. The Center for American Progress proposes establishing a mechanism to ensure that government income and spending for all items -- except debt service -- move into balance by 2014. The next goal would be to have all government spending – including debt service – be covered by income in 2020.

Three studies--two by the Lewin Group and one by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (a federal body)--conclude that various congressional plans would increase health spending. The estimates vary but range from $114 billion to $750 billion over the next decade. Given its structure, there is no reason to believe the "new" Reid bill will be much different.

There is good reason to think that these reforms would pour gasoline on the fire of health inflation: Though details differ, both the House and Senate bills would offer subsidies to millions, insist on first-dollar coverage for certain services and expand entitlements.

Yemen has frequently been described as a failing state -- and with good reason. Civil war, terrorism, a deepening secessionist movement and economic and demographic trends threaten to overpower the Yemeni government, provide a breeding ground for terrorists and destabilize the region. Yemen has often teetered on the brink of collapse, but it has never faced so many interconnected challenges at one time.

At the heart of the country's problems is a looming economic crisis. Oil is the source of nearly 80 percent of government revenue, and it is quickly running out. There are few viable options for a sustainable post-oil economy, and Yemen is already the poorest country in the Arab world with an unemployment rate conservatively estimated at 35 percent. Yemen's pending economic collapse has been greatly accelerated by the civil war in Saada. Government forces have been unable to decisively put down the rebels in the north of the country, and there is no military solution to the conflict. The toll in Saada has been severe, with extensive damage to infrastructure and an estimated 175,000 internally displaced people. The conflict's strain on the Yemeni army has led to questions about the military's ability to simultaneously engage in other operations, including counterterrorism. The government is spending foreign currency reserves at an alarming rate, recently estimated at more than $200 million per month. Spending on the war will create a major budget deficit next year. Every dollar spent on the civil war is a dollar not spent on addressing the underlying causes of instability in Yemen. Yemen also is facing a growing secessionist movement in the south of the country. When the war in Saada subsides, it is feared that the secessionist movement will again flare up.  The government does not control the entire territory of Yemen, and the emergence of additional areas outside of the capital of Sanaa's control will create more under-governed spaces that can be exploited by terrorist movements.

Military operations to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives will likely increase in 2010. These actions carry risks. Publicly acknowledged American involvement in counterterrorism operations in Yemen would be deeply unpopular in the country, likely undermine the legitimacy of the Yemeni government and feed into the grievances that help fuel al Qaeda militancy. Development assistance is one of the most effective tools available to address the interconnected long-term challenges facing Yemen. But, U.S. aid is disproportionately small considering the magnitude of the problems facing the country and Yemen's strategic importance to the United States. In addition to the reported $70 million of military and security assistance, the United States recently announced $121 million in development aid over the next three years, a significant increase from previous years and a vital step in the right direction. Still, the amount pales in comparison to the $1.5 billion allotted to Pakistan in the next year alone. This disparity persists even as U.S. officials increasingly cite Yemen as a terrorism and security priority second only to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

After several years of crime rates holding relatively steady, the FBI is reporting that violent crimes – including gun crimes – dropped dramatically in the first six months of 2009, with murder down 10 percent across the US as a whole.

After several years of crime rates holding relatively steady, the FBI is reporting that violent crimes – including gun crimes – dropped dramatically in the first six months of 2009, with murder down 10 percent across the US as a whole. Concurrently, the FBI reports that gun sales – especially of assault-style rifles and handguns, two main targets of gun-control groups – are up at least 12 percent nationally since the election of President Obama, a dramatic run on guns prompted in part by so-far-unwarranted fears that Democrats in Congress and the White House will curtail gun rights and carve apart the Second Amendment.

The debate over whether guns spur or deter crime has been under way for decades. So far, research has come out with, in essence, a net-zero correlation between gun sales and crime rates. More likely factors for the crime rate decline have to do with Americans hunkering down, spending less time out on the town with cash in their pockets and more time at home with the porch lights on, experts say. So-called "smart policing" that focuses specifically on repeat offenders and troubled areas could also be playing a role, as could extended unemployment benefits that staved off desperation.

But after the country's contested presidential elections in June, the majority of Iran's parliament formally endorsed Ahmadinejad's victory. In late October, lawmakers cemented their support by backing legislation to phase out by March 2014 subsidies for fuel, water, flour, bread, wheat, rice, oil, milk, sugar, and postal and transportation services.

Critics say Ahmadinejad's lavish spending on housing projects, infrastructure, cash handouts, and subsidized loans since his election in 2005 has spurred inflation and reduced currency reserves to a precariously low level

The subsidies, which the president argues benefit the wealthy more than the poor, are to be replaced with cash handouts to the lower-income half of Iran's population, with compensation currently estimated to be worth 170,000 rials ($17) a person

Another Reuters report adds that Yemen has become an attractive home base to Al Qaeda since the group has come under pressure in Pakistan and Afghanistan and because the Yemeni government is incapable of controlling all its territory. The New York Times reported Sunday that because of this concern, the US is quietly aiding and equipping Yemeni security forces and providing them with intelligence. The Pentagon will spend $70 million over the next 18 months on counterterrorism in Yemen, and uses teams of special forces to train Yemen’s military. The Times reports that this more than doubles previous military aid levels.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the US involvement in Yemen may have provoked increased threats toward the West from Al Qaeda in Yemen. Those threats, particularly against Western aviation, increased in the months before Friday’s attempted bombing by Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab. A growing number of militants fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan are also retreating to Yemen, reports the Journal.

The bill must now go to a conference committee to resolve significant differences between the House and Senate versions. And history shows that agreement is far from guaranteed. In fact, just last year, a bill reforming the Indian Health Service died when the conference committee couldn't overcome its differences on abortion. Similarly, in 2007, bills dealing with issues as varied as campaign-finance reform, corporate pensions and closing tax loopholes passed both chambers but never became law. .author_pub2 a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tanner.jpg) no-repeat -110px 0; } .author_pub2a a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tanner.jpg) no-repeat 0 0; }

It's important to remember that the House bill passed with just three votes to spare and the Senate bill received exactly the 60 votes needed for passage. Democratic leaders have little room to maneuver as they try to resolve such issues as:

The Public Option: The Senate rejected the concept of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) made it clear that inclusion of the so-called public option would cause them to join a Republican filibuster. They are justifiably concerned that a taxpayer-subsidized government plan would drive private insurance out of the market and lead to a single-payer government-run system. But the House did include a public option -- and retaining it has become the top priority for the Dems' liberal wing. Public-option advocates seemed willing to go along with a proposed Medicare "buy-in" for those 55 to 64, but even that compromise was dropped from the final Senate bill. Now Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn), among others, has made it clear his vote is in doubt if the final bill does not include some form of public option. And such liberal activist groups as Moveon.org have promised to spend the holiday vacation pressuring their allies to fight for the public option.

At heart, the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation are very much the same. Both require virtually all Americans to have health insurance, while offering low- and middle-income people subsidies to make that mandate more affordable. Both would establish new marketplaces, called "exchanges," where individuals who don't get insurance from employers could buy coverage. Both would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years and pay for themselves via cuts in projected Medicare spending and tax and fee increases. Both would ban insurance firms from denying anyone coverage due to pre-existing health conditions.