Weekend Economists at War! January 10-12, 2014

[Demeter]

As NPR has repeatedly reminded us this week, 50 years ago Lyndon Baines Johnson declared a War on Poverty, claiming that the richest nation in the world ought to be able to win that one.




And, for a while, it was working:

The War on Poverty is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. The speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, which established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against poverty. As a part of the Great Society, Johnson believed in expanding the government's role in education and health care as poverty reduction strategies. These policies can also be seen as a continuation of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, which ran from 1933 to 1935, and the Four Freedoms of 1941.

The popularity of a war on poverty waned after the 1960s. Deregulation, growing criticism of the welfare state, and an ideological shift to reducing federal aid to impoverished people in the 1980s and 1990s culminated in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, which, as claimed President Bill Clinton, to "end welfare as we know it." Prof. Tony Judt, the late historian, said in reference to the earlier proposed title of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act that "a more Orwellian title would be hard to conceive" and attributed the decline in the popularity of the Great Society as a policy to its success, as fewer people feared hunger, sickness, and ignorance. Additionally, fewer people were concerned with ensuring a minimum standard for all citizens and social liberalism.

Nonetheless, the legacy of the War on Poverty policy initiative remains in the continued existence of such federal programs as Head Start, Volunteers in Service to America, TRIO, and Job Corps.

Major initiatives

Social Security Act 1965 (Created Medicare and Medicaid) – July 19, 1965

Food Stamp Act of 1964- August 31, 1964[3]

The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which created the Community Action Program, Job Corps and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA), centerpiece of the "war on poverty" – August 20, 1964

Elementary and Secondary Education Act - April 11, 1965

The Office of Economic Opportunity was the agency responsible for administering most of the War on Poverty programs created during Johnson's Administration, including VISTA, Job Corps, Head Start, Legal Services and the Community Action Program. The OEO was established in 1964 and quickly became a target of both left-wing and right-wing critics of the War on Poverty. Directors of the OEO included Sargent Shriver, Bertrand Harding, and Donald Rumsfeld.(! St. Ronnie, no doubt--Demeter)

The OEO launched Project Head Start as an eight-week summer program in 1965. The project was designed to help end poverty by providing preschool children from low-income families with a program that would meet emotional, social, health, nutritional, and psychological needs. Head Start was then transferred to the Office of Child Development in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (later the Department of Health and Human Services) by the Nixon Administration in 1969.

President Johnson also announced a second project to follow children from the Head Start program. This was implemented in 1967 with Project Follow Through, the largest educational experiment ever conducted. The policy trains disadvantaged and at-risk youth and has provided more than 2 million disadvantaged young people with the integrated academic, vocational, and social skills training they need to gain independence and get quality, long-term jobs or further their education. Job Corps continues to help 70,000 youths annually at 122 Job Corps centers throughout the country. Besides vocational training, many Job Corps also offer GED programs as well as high school diplomas and programs to get students into college.

Criticisms

President Johnson's "War on Poverty" speech was delivered at a time of recovery (the poverty level had fallen from 22.4% in 1959 to 19% in 1964 when the War on Poverty was announced) and it was viewed by critics as an effort to get the United States Congress to authorize social welfare programs.

Some economists, including Milton Friedman, have argued that Johnson's policies actually had a negative impact on the economy because of their interventionist nature, noting in a PBS interview that "the government sets out to eliminate poverty, it has a war on poverty, so-called "poverty" increases. It has a welfare program, and the welfare program leads to an expansion of problems. A general attitude develops that government isn't a very efficient way of doing things." Adherents of this school of thought recommend that the best way to fight poverty is not through government spending but through economic growth. (BOO! HISS!)

Conservative Research Fellow at the Independent Institute James followed this line of thinking when he wrote that "the war on poverty was a costly, tragic mistake [because]...abolishing poverty did not seem far-fetched to the activists...[and] it was a perspective that led to intolerance...The simple economic theory of poverty led to a single underlying principle for welfare programs...In adopting the handout approach for their programs, the war-on-poverty activists failed to notice—or failed to care—that they were ignoring over a century of theory and experience in the social welfare field...The war-on-poverty activists not only ignored the lessons of the past on the subject of handouts; they also ignored their own experience with the poor." (DOES HE REFER TO THE GLOBAL RESEARCH THAT SHOWS THAT THE SUREST WAY TO GET SOMEONE OUT OF POVERTY IS TO GIVE HIM/HER SOME CASH? DEMETER)

Others took a different tack. In 1967, in his book Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? Martin Luther King "criticized Johnson's War on Poverty for being too piecemeal," saying that programs created under the "war on poverty" such as "housing programs, job training and family counseling" all had "a fatal disadvantage [because] the programs have never proceeded on a coordinated basis...[and noted that] at no time has a total, coordinated and fully adequate program been conceived." In his speech on April 4, 1967 at Riverside Church in New City, King connected the war in Vietnam with the "war on poverty":

"There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home."

This criticism was repeated in his speech at the same place later that month when he said that "and you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such."[16] The next year, King started the Poor People's Campaign to address the shortcomings of the "war on poverty" and to "demand a check" for suffering African-Americans which was carried on briefly after his death with the construction and maintenance of an encampment, Resurrection City, for over six weeks. Years later, a writer in The Nation remarked that "the war on poverty has too often been a war on the poor themselves," but that much can be done.

In 1989, the former executive officer of the Task Force on Poverty Hyman Bookbinder addressed such criticisms of the "war on poverty" in an op-ed in The New York Times. He wrote that:

"Today, the ranks of the poor are again swelling...These and other statistics have led careless observers to conclude that the war on poverty failed.

No, it has achieved many good results. Society has failed. It tired of the war too soon, gave it inadequate resources and did not open up new fronts as required.

Large-scale homelessness, an explosion of teen-age pregnancies and single-parent households, rampant illiteracy, drugs and crime - these have been both the results of and causes of persistent poverty. While it is thus inappropriate to celebrate an anniversary of the war on poverty, it is important to point up some of the big gains...Did every program of the 60's work? Was every dollar used to its maximum potential? Should every Great Society program be reinstated or increased? Of course not...First, we cannot afford not to resume the war. One way or another, the problem will remain expensive. Somehow, we will provide for the survival needs of the poorest: welfare, food stamps, beds and roofs for the homeless, Medicaid. The fewer poor there are, the fewer the relief problems. Getting people out of poverty is the most cost-effective public investment."

Decline in welfare benefits highlights decreased support in government for War on Poverty initiatives 1962–2006 (in 2006 dollars).

Results and aftermath

In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.

The ‘absolute poverty line’ is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.

Poverty among Americans between ages 18–64 has fallen only marginally since 1966, from 10.5% then to 10.1% today. Poverty has significantly fallen among Americans under 18 years old from 23% in 1964 down to less than 17%, although it has risen again to 20% in 2009. The most dramatic decrease in poverty was among Americans over 65, which fell from 28.5% in 1966 to 10.1% today. In 2004, more than 35.9 million, or 12% of Americans including 12.1 million children, were considered to be living in poverty with an average growth of almost 1 million per year. According to the CATO institute, since the Johnson Administration almost $15 trillion has been spent on welfare, with poverty rates being about the same as during the Johnson Administration.

The OEO was dismantled by President Nixon in 1973, though many of the agency's programs were transferred to other government agencies.

%3Fw%3D628

[Demeter]

1. AS OF 7:30 PM EST, NO BANKS HAVE FAILED...YET

[Demeter]

2. 50 Years After the War on Poverty, Will the Middle Class Become the New Poor? Lynn Stuart Parramore

http://www.alternet.org/economy/50-years-after-war-poverty-will-middle-class-become-new-poor

Fifty years ago today, LBJ threw down the gauntlet on poverty in his famous State of the Union address of 1964. Fired with passion and buoyed by bipartisan support, his anti-poverty team kicked off new health insurance programs for the old and the poor, increased Social Security, established food stamps and nutritional supplements for low-income pregnant women and infants, and started programs to give more young people a chance to succeed, like Head Start and Job Corps.

Americans have greatly benefited from big-picture economic changes like the minimum wage; investments in worker training and education; civil rights policies; social insurance; and programs like food stamps and Medicaid. As Georgetown University’s Peter Edelman pointed out in the New York Times, without these programs, research shows that poverty would be nearly double what it is today. According to economist Jared Bernstein, Social Security alone has reduced the official elderly poverty rate from 44 percent, which it would be without benefits, to 9 percent with them.

Some of our most prominent citizens have enjoyed protection from life’s vagaries through one or another of these measures. President Obama’s family once survived on food stamps. Congressman Paul Ryan was able to pay for school with Social Security survivor benefits when his dad died. A mere generation before, the workhouse or the orphanage might have been their fates.

Yet middle-class Americans are increasingly in danger of learning about poverty firsthand. The gaps between the rich and poor are the widest they have been in a century, and the middle class is disappearing into the chasm. According to research by economist Emmanuel Saez, the share of income that goes to the top 1 percent has more than doubled since 1964. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, the top 1 percent has sucked up nearly all of the income gains in the first three years of the “recovery" — a stupefying 95 percent. The fluidity of American society used to be taken for granted, but now the U.S. lags behind Europe in measurements of mobility. Not only is the climb to middle-class stability increasingly steep, the fall into poverty is more likely. The Great Recession brought home an ugly reality: nowadays it only takes one pink slip, foreclosure notice or catastrophic medical bill to push economically secure people into the ranks of the poor — even people with college diplomas and impressive resumes.

Why is this happening? Not because of some cosmic forces beyond our control, but because of misguided policies put into place by our elected officials and paid for by an increasingly out-of-touch business elite. Energized by Ronald Reagan’s famous declaration that government is the problem, not the solution, conservatives in recent decades have sought to reduce the government’s vital role in creating opportunity and keeping hard-pressed Americans afloat. Simultaneously, they have unleashed the wild horses of deregulated capitalism, which have trampled working people. Labor unions have been crushed, wages have declined, safety nets have frayed, medical expenses have risen, and millions of Americans are now teetering on the edge of poverty....

.................................

The thing is, we know how to fix this. We’re not starting from scratch, as we did in the Great Depression. The tests of time have demonstrated that when the government invests in its citizens, society and the economy are rewarded many times over. There are a few signs that the message is getting across. For example, increasing the minimum wage has growing support. But a great deal more is required if we want to avoid a giant — and wholly unnecessary — social experiment in poverty creation. Here are a few suggestions for a new anti-poverty agenda:

Make the rich pay their fair share by ending unfair tax breaks.

Expand Social Security, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and others have demanded.

Protect people from going hopelessly into debt through medical expenses.Obamacare has failed to put a tight lid on potential total medical costs. Eventually, we must join the civilized world with single payer healthcare.

Increase state-supported education. It’s absurd that people have to go into debt just to pay for their educations.

Strengthen regulation so irresponsible companies do not rob ordinary Americans.

Restore the rights of workers, like collective bargaining and protection from wage theft.

Understand that austerity policies do not work, and only exacerbate economic woes.

Aggressively attack unemployment and remember the lesson learned in the Great Depression: when the private sector can’t come up with jobs, the government must fill the breach.

Protect the reproductive rights of women.

Protect civil rights, such as access to voting, in places where such rights are under attack.

MORE

Lynn Parramore is an AlterNet senior editor. She is cofounder of Recessionwire, founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of 'Reading the Sphinx: Ancient Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture.' She received her Ph.d in English and Cultural Theory from NYU, where she has taught essay writing and semiotics. She is the Director of AlterNet's New Economic Dialogue Project. Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore.

[Tansy_Gold]

25. "The book that sparked the War on Poverty"

(I have a tattered paperback copy. It is as moving, disturbing, and enraging today as when it was written. -T.G.)


"The Other America," by Michael Harrington (c) 1962

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Harrington


Edward Michael "Mike" Harrington (February 24, 1928 – July 31, 1989) was an American democratic socialist, writer, political activist, political theorist, professor of political science, radio commentator and initiator of the Democratic Socialists of America. During the 1970s he invented the term neoconservatism.

Michael Harrington was born in St. Louis, Missouri, on February 24, 1928, to an Irish-American family. He attended St. Roch Catholic School and Saint Louis University High School, where he was a classmate (class of 1944) of Thomas Anthony Dooley III. He later attended the College of the Holy Cross, the University of Chicago (MA in English Literature), and Yale Law School. As a young man, he was interested in both leftist politics and Roman Catholicism. He joined Dorothy Day's Catholic Worker Movement, a pacifist group that advocated a radical interpretation of the Gospel. Harrington enjoyed arguing about culture and politics, and his Jesuit education had made him a good debater and rhetorician.

On May 30, 1963, Harrington married Stephanie Gervis, a free-lance writer and staff writer for the Village Voice. He died on July 31, 1989, of cancer.


Harrington was an editor of the newspaper The Catholic Worker from 1951 to 1953. However, he became disillusioned with religion and, although he would always retain a certain affection for Catholic culture, he ultimately became an atheist.

In 1978 the periodical Christian Century quoted him thus: "I am a pious apostate, an atheist shocked by the faithlessness of the believers, a fellow traveler of moderate Catholicism who has been out of the church for 20 years."


His estrangement from religion was accompanied by an increasing interest in Marxism and secular socialism. After leaving The Catholic Worker Harrington became a member of the Independent Socialist League, a small organization associated with the former Trotskyist activist Max Shachtman. Harrington and Shachtman believed that socialism, which in their opinion implied a just and fully democratic society, could not be realized by authoritarian Communism and they were both fiercely critical of the "bureaucratic collectivist" states in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

After Norman Thomas's Socialist Party absorbed Shachtman's organization, Harrington endorsed the Shachtmanite strategy of working as part of the Democratic Party, rather than sponsoring candidates as Socialists. (Tansy's comment: That may not have been such a good strategy after all.....)


Harrington served as the first editor of New America, the official weekly newspaper of the Socialist Party-Social Democratic Federation, initiated in October 1960.

During this period Harrington wrote The Other America: Poverty in the United States, a book that had an effect on President Kennedy's administration, and on President Lyndon B. Johnson's subsequent so-called War on Poverty. Harrington became a widely read intellectual and political writer. He would frequently debate noted conservatives but would also argue with younger "New Left" radicals. He was present at the 1962 SDS conference that resulted in the creation of the Port Huron Statement, concerning which he argued that the final draft was insufficiently anti-Communist. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. referred to Harrington as the "only responsible radical" in America. His relative fame caused him to be added to the master list of Nixon political opponents.


By the early 1970s, the governing faction of the Socialist Party continued to endorse a negotiated peace to end the Vietnam War, an opinion that Harrington increasingly believed was no longer viable. The majority changed the organization's name to Social Democrats, USA. After losing at the convention, Harrington resigned and, with his former caucus, formed the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee. (A smaller faction associated with peace activist David McReynolds formed the Socialist Party USA).

During the early 1980s The Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee merged with the New American Movement, an organization of New Left activists, forming the Democratic Socialists of America. This organization remains the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International, which includes socialist parties as diverse as the Swedish and German Social Democrats, Nicaragua's FSLN, and the British Labour Party. Harrington was the Chairman of DSA from its inception until his death.

Harrington was appointed a professor of political science at Queens College in Flushing, Queens, New York City, in 1972, and was named a distinguished professor in 1988. During the 1980s he contributed commentaries to National Public Radio. He was also an occasional writer for The New York Review of Books.

Harrington was the best-known socialist in the United States during his lifetime, in recognition of which the City University of New York established "The Michael Harrington Center for Democratic Values and Social Change" at Queens College.

Media appearances
Harrington was a guest speaker on the television series Free to Choose, where he argued against some of Milton Friedman's theories of the free market. In 1966 he appeared on William F. Buckley, Jr.'s television program Firing Line. He explained his opinions on poverty, and debated Buckley regarding government attempts to address poverty and its consequences.

Bibliography
The Other America: Poverty in the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1962.
The Retail Clerks. New York: John Wiley, 1962.
The Accidental Century. New York: Macmillan, 1965.
The Social-Industrial Complex. New York: League for Industrial Democracy, 1968.
Toward a Democratic Left: A Radical Program for a New Majority. New York: Macmillan, 1968.
Socialism. New York: Saturday Review Press, 1972.
Fragments of the Century: A Social Autobiography. New York: Saturday Review Press, 1973.
Twilight of Capitalism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1977.
The Vast Majority. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1977.
Tax Policy and the Economy: A Debate between Michael Harrington and Representative Jack Kemp, April 25, 1979. New York: Institute for Democratic Socialism, 1979.
Decade of Decision: The Crisis of the American System. New York: Touchstone, 1981.
The Next America: The Decline and Rise of the United States. New York: Touchstone, 1981.
The Politics at God's Funeral: The Spiritual Crisis of Western Civilization. New York: Henry Holt, 1983.
The New American Poverty. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1984.
Taking Sides: The Education of a Militant Mind. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1985.
The Next Left: The History of a Future. New York: Henry Holt, 1986.
The Long Distance Runner: An Autobiography. New York: Henry Holt, 1988.
Socialism: Past & Future. New York: Arcade Publishing, 1989.

[Demeter]

3. LOS ANGELES: New housing projects for homeless go beyond basic shelter Craig Nakano April 25, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-homeless25-2009apr25,0,7591925.story#ixzz2ppi5BT80


New apartment complexes in downtown L.A.'s skid row offer homes that feel safe, encourage healing and look good....

It's the day before the grand opening of the Abbey Apartments, where 113 formerly homeless men and women will try to rebuild 113 broken lives. Mike Alvidrez, executive director of the Skid Row Housing Trust, swings through the sunny courtyard, shows off the TV lounge, then climbs to the fifth floor sun deck where striped patio umbrellas sway in the afternoon breeze. In the distance: a panorama of the downtown L.A. skyline that would make most loft dwellers envious.


But the tour isn't over. Alvidrez moves to another vista point, this one overlooking the courtyard of the Downtown Drop-In Center next door. Dozens of people pack an asphalt lot. One man sleeps next to a bike, its handlebars weighted with belongings. Others sit by pushcarts overloaded with blankets and jackets. On the street beyond lies a woman with even less -- just a cardboard condo, a filthy box that shields her from flies and an even filthier sidewalk.

That distinction between basic shelter and genuine home is being made, eloquently, here on skid row, where some of the most compelling housing in the city is being built for those who have none. The Abbey, which held its grand opening April 16, and other recent projects attempt to move beyond the architecture of survival. They represent the architecture of ambition -- the desire to do better, despite the odds. Provide a bed and bathroom, sure, but also furnish residents with security, stability and, most important, hope.

These buildings raise intriguing questions about the power of design to change lives. Can the placement of a lounge really foster social interaction among people who often have lived for years, sometimes decades, in emotional isolation? If the street outside is a vision of urban grit, do residents really want a window to that world? If you put a nurse, a psychiatrist and a social worker inside a home, will residents eventually see them as extended family worthy of trust?

MORE

[Demeter]

43. Historic House Is Yours Free, But There's A Catch

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/11/260882470/historic-house-is-yours-free-but-theres-a-catch?ft=1&f=1001

... One architectural firm is so determined to save one 1920s Sears kit house from demolition, it's giving the house away for free. But there's a catch: the buyer would need to pay to move it to a new location. The 960-square-foot house is a Wellington model, a style of home Sears sold by catalog in 1926 through its mail order Modern Homes program... It is cute and inviting with its original fireplace, and a living room, dining room, two bedrooms and a kitchen...

Sears, Roebuck and Co. sold more than 70,000 of the mail order homes between 1908 and 1940. There were more than 400 styles, ranging from dignified, multi-story models such as The Ivanhoe, to the three-room, no-bath summer cottage called The Goldenrod.

...moving the house will be quite a project. The house would need to be lifted off the foundation, without its two porches, placed on a truck and moved. A contractor would need to disconnect and cap off the utilities at its current location, which is not cheap.

"Just to put it on a truck and move it locally, it's about $30,000," Amodeo says. That estimate doesn't include any work needed once the house is at the new site, such as a foundation for the house... the architects have received nearly 150 emails about the Sears house; they're scheduling meetings in hopes of finding it a new home.

[Demeter]

44. CA Home of the Week: A Tudor along the water of Toluca Lake

http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-home-20140112,0,605929.story


The five-bedroom, six-bathroom Tudor along Toluca Lake features an elegant formal entry and library that reflect architect Paul Revere Williams' traditional style. A red-brick driveway leads to this Paul Revere Williams-designed Tudor set along the water of Toluca Lake. The elegant formal entry and the library, with its wood-beam ceiling and built-in bookcases, are in keeping with the architect's traditional style.

Location: 9956 Toluca Lake Ave., Toluca Lake 91602

Asking price: $8 million

Year built: 1938

House size: Five bedrooms, six bathrooms, 7,228 square feet

Lot size: 1.02 acres

Features: Dark wood flooring, recessed lighting, leaded windows, intricate molding, curved staircase, bar, wine cellar, covered patio, outdoor fireplace, gazebo, swimming pool, private dock

About the area: In the first half of 2013, 84 single-family homes sold in the 91602 ZIP Code at a median price of $842,000, according to DataQuick. That was a 29% price increase from the first half of 2012.

[Tansy_Gold]

56. Sears Kit Home

"The Concord" model, built circa 1934, Park Ridge, Illinois.

The kits were delivered on a flatbed truck and came complete with everything from premeasured and cut lumber to plumbing fixtures to nails and door hardware.

Photo taken November 2004; house is still there.

[DemReadingDU]

60. That is amazing!

[Tansy_Gold]

61. 1408

The house is affectionately known as 1408 -- the number is over the garage door -- because my grandfather later bought another house at 1127 on the same street.

My grandparents built (assembled?) this house and moved to Park Ridge from Chicago when my mother was about 5 years old. She and her two older brothers were raised there. My uncle was in the house 10-12 years ago and said it had been extensively remodeled, and not necessarily for the better. I've never been in it.

I think it's a testament to the quality of the materials and even sometimes amateur workmanship that so many of these houses survive.

For a look at lots more --

http://mailorderhomesofparkridge.blogspot.com/

[DemReadingDU]

67. There are so many different models of Sears Kit Homes

I knew people could mail-order kit homes from Sears, I never realized there were so many different models to choose from. And it took people to assemble the kits, as well as homeowners to assemble the homes. Truly an amazing period of time in our country.

[Demeter]

4. Retirement Theft in 4 Despicable Steps By Paul Buchheit

http://www.alternet.org/economy/retirement-theft-4-despicable-steps?akid=11368.227380.fpS4VJ&rd=1&src=newsletter943636&t=6

The fear of running out of money in retirement is America's greatest financial concern. It's a fear greater than death. But the American workers who have paid all their lives for retirement security are being cheated by wealthy individuals and corporations who refuse to meet their tax obligations, and who have found other ways to keep expanding their wealth at the expense of the middle class.

1. Federal Tax Avoidance is the Biggest Threat to Social Security

Conservatives say that Social Security is too expensive, and that cutbacks and a later retirement age are necessary. But they refuse to acknowledge the facts about missing revenue. Annual tax avoidance by wealthy individuals and corporations is in the trillions of dollars, over double the cost of Social Security. Big corporations are the worst offenders. The numbers are startling. For every dollar they paid relative to payroll tax in the 1950s, they now pay ten cents. In just the past ten years they've cut their tax rate in half. The sum total of tax underpayments, tax haven losses, corporate tax avoidance, and tax expenditures (most of which benefit the very rich) is over $2 trillion. Although Social Security costs less than half of that, Congress is targeting Americans who have paid into it at the highest rate, while tax avoiders are left undisturbed.

From whom does Congress propose to take retirement benefits? From people whose average retirement account is under $30,000, and for whom Social Security is the largest source of retirement income. From those who have already experienced Social Security cuts through delayed cost-of-living adjustments and higher taxes. From the half of the middle class whose food budget, by one estimate, will be $5 a day in their retirement years.

2. State Tax Avoidance Defunds Pensions

In what David Cay Johnston calls "nothing short of theft," states are reneging on pensions that workers have been paying into for years. Illinois, Michigan, California and a slew of other states have mismanaged and squandered funds that belong to their employees, and then, in effect, have blamed those employees for the mess by penalizing them with pension cuts.

Once again, one of the reasons for the shortfall is corporate irresponsibility. In 2011 and 2012, 155 of the largest companies paid just 1.8 percent of their total income in state taxes (3.6 percent of their declared U.S. income). The average required rate for the 50 states was 6.56 percent in 2011. Similar results were found in a Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) report on 2008-10 state taxes, which found that 265 large companies paid an average of 3 percent in state taxes, less than half the average state tax rate. The results are summarized at Pay Up Now. How much money is this? The missing 3% tax on over $2 trillion in profits is anywhere from $30 billion to $60 billion, depending on the true U.S. portion of total corporate income.

But instead of taking on the delinquent corporations, states have increased sales taxes and property taxes, while building up their regressive lottery systems to the point that eleven states collected more revenue from their lotteries in 2009 than from corporate income tax.

3. Corporations Play One Underfunded State Against Another

The news from the states gets even worse. On the pretense that their presence enriches the people of their home states, and that subsidy-green pastures lie right across the border, companies have cunningly negotiated tax-cutting deals in return for the promise to stay. A Good Jobs First report describes the process, which costs state and local governments up to $80 billion a year. Dozens of deals have been contrived, at least ten each in Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, and New Jersey. Sixteen states have enacted the Private Income Tax (PIT) diversion, by which EMPLOYERS rather than governments get to withhold state income taxes from employee paychecks and to keep all or some portion of the funds. Illinois' pension mess has its roots in corporate threats to bolt the state: $100 million to Motorola; $150 million to Sears; $56 million to Boeing to bring its headquarters to Chicago; and nearly $200 million to Caterpillar, which paid only 2 percent of its U.S. income in state taxes in 2011-12, and whose CEO called Illinois "unfriendly to business." Meanwhile, other Illinois companies are trying to get in on the handouts. Agribusiness leader Archer Daniels Midland is threatening to leave the state. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange made a big fuss over its tax bill in 2011, even though its 2008-10 profit margin was higher than any of the top 100 companies in the nation.

Washington is another state being victimized, at the hands of Boeing, which according to Citizens for Tax Justice paid nothing in federal taxes over ten years and nothing to Washington in state taxes, despite $32 billion in pretax U.S. profits. Now, while engineering a bidding war among multiple states, the company has wangled the nation's single biggest state tax break ($8.7 billion over 16 years) while informing its employees that their pension and benefits will be slashed.

In California, the tech giant Apple has its own way of dealing with state taxes, claiming residency in tax-free Nevada.

Ill-informed state leaders might heed the findings of a New York State Tax Commission, which said: "There is...no conclusive evidence from research studies conducted since the mid-1950s to show that business tax incentives have an impact on net economic gains to the states above and beyond the level that would have been attained absent the incentives."

4. Banks Take a Big Chunk of Our Retirement Accounts

Nearly $2 of every $5 in potential 401(k) earnings is lost because of bank fees. An individual investing $1,000 a year for 30 years (with the historical 6% return) and then holding the accumulated sum for another 20 years would end up with $269,000 in a non-fee fund, but just $165,000 with the industry average 1.3% fee. In the individual states, banks have their fee-absorbing tentacles wrapped around employee pension plans. In Rhode Island it is projected that $2.1 billion in fees will be paid to hedge funds, private-equity funds, and venture-capital funds over the next 20 years, about equal to the amount saved by freezing Cost of Living Adjustments for public workers. In Detroit, $250 million in bankruptcy expenses was doled out to firms that employ lawyers, accountants, financial analysts, and public-relations consultants. In South Carolina, the plunge by pension managers into private equity and hedge funds has resulted in $1.2 billion in fees since 2008. American workers and retirees are the victims, and their numbers are growing. According to the National Institute on Retirement Security, almost half (45 percent) of working-age households do not own any retirement account assets. The average working household has virtually no retirement savings. But it doesn't matter to business-happy privatization advocates, who don't seem to recognize that this poorer half of America even exists.

[Demeter]

18. Help for retirement savers who saved too little

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/help-for-retirement-savers-who-saved-too-little-2014-01-10



Almost one-half of households with adults between ages 25 and 64 have less than $10,000 saved for retirement. These people need some serious help with retirement planning or they will live in poverty.

The chart below provides a quick way to get a ballpark estimate of the amount you should be saving each month to be better prepared for retirement. It has three very simple assumptions: (1) You will be able to earn 4% more than inflation on pre-retirement savings, (2) you will be able to earn 2% more than inflation after retiring, and (3) both your savings deposits and retirement withdrawals will increase each year with inflation.

Some people will do better and some worse depending on the investments they have and the economic circumstances they encounter.



Example: Suppose you wanted your retirement savings to last 20 years and you thought you might work for 16 more years. Look on the chart and find the number 1.3 at the intersection of those two values. If you could save $500 a month, then in retirement you could spend 1.3 x $500 = $650 per month.

But there's a more useful way we can use the same chart. We can determine how much we should save each month after we determine how much we need to spend in retirement. We'll also need to know how many years we will save before retiring, and how many years we will need the retirement savings to last. Let's illustrate this with an example...

MORE

[Demeter]

5. In a light-hearted change of mood, it's raining

on the 2 ft of snow we collected lately.

It's not supposed to drop to freezing until late Saturday, when yours truly goes out to deliver papers.

I'll leave the rest to your imagination.

[kickysnana]

6. Be careful out there. This happened just down I694 near here a few days ago.

MNDOT camera captures a Ford Ranger flying off a bridge and onto a pond.

[Demeter]

8. the pond is still frozen, I think

It's the potholes and the snowdrifts and the mailboxes I worry about. Also, coming in for a hard landing when I'm on my feet....

[Demeter]

7. The US declared war on poverty 50 years ago. You would never know it

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/06/war-on-poverty-50-years-lyndon-johnson?CMP=ema_565

Lyndon Johnson declared an unconditional war on poverty for reasons both economic and moral. They are still relevant today....In an era such as our own, when – despite a poverty rate the Census Bureau puts at 16% – Congress is preparing to cut the food stamp program and has refused to extend unemployment insurance, Johnson's compassion stands out, along with his nuanced sense of who the poor are and what can be done to make their lives better.

Johnson's 1964 ideas on how to wage a war on poverty (today a family of four living on $23,492 a year and an individual living on $11,720 a year are classified as poor) not only conflict with the current thinking of those on the right who would reduce government aid to the needy. They also conflict with the current thinking of those on the left who would make the social safety net, rather than fundamental economic change, the answer to poverty.

Johnson's approach to poverty reflects the influence of John F Kennedy and the New Deal thinking of Franklin Roosevelt, but the passion behind Johnson's call for a war on poverty has its deepest historical parallel in a figure very unlike him – the turn-of-the-century American pragmatist William James. James, in his 1906 essay, the Moral Equivalent of War, made the case for bringing the fervor we associate with war to improving civic life...In words that might easily have been spoken by James, Johnson declared:

In the past we have often been called upon to wage war against foreign enemies which threatened our freedom. Today we are asked to declare war on a domestic enemy which threatens the strength of our nation and the welfare of our people.

...At the core of Johnson's war on poverty, which he continually linked to civil rights, lay his belief that, while coming to the rescue of the poor was important, temporary relief could not be the basis of victory. "The war on poverty is not a struggle simply to support people, to make them dependent on the generosity of others," LBJ insisted. "We want to offer the forgotten fifth of our people opportunity and not doles."

MUCH MORE AT LINK

[Demeter]

9. Cogent Comment to Above Article

How can we address a problem when we, in our minds, create an inseparable bond between the affliction, and those afflicted?

There is no such thing as "the poor."

This term is the result of a holdover from the colonial days of the British Empire, and must be dispensed with along with the prevailing belief in class. We are all equal but for the opportunities denied us. And education is the most important thing in determining a person's "class."

Whether or not you believe these facts regarding human equality has no bearing on their validity. We are ruled by people who distort human nature because they seek to create a world to suit themselves. In this world, there are classes. And the only way they can be wealthy, is if there are those who are poor. So they only way they can maintain their status is to ensure that education does not fully reach enough to maintain their wealthy status. It also helps that an ignorant person is going to be more submissive.

So please, Guardian editors, adjust your standards, or implement a new one which does not create an artificial and illogical link between an affliction and those affected by it. Those who are presently poor, are poor because they were deprived of education. We are all humans, capable of the same relative levels of intelligence.

There is no such thing as "the poor." There are however; people who are victims of poverty, which is an affliction created by society. Only when we address an issue in the correct light can we make positive changes to correct the issue. Any efforts to fix a problem that doesn't exist won't work.

Perhaps that's why the war on poverty failed?

[Demeter]

10. The Circle of Scam Paul Waldman

http://prospect.org/article/circle-scam

Welcome to conservative politics, where everybody's fleecing somebody.

I've long held that what William Goldman said about Hollywood—"Nobody knows anything"—is equally true of Washington. At the same time though, people in politics are particularly adept at finding those who know even less than they do, and scamming them into giving over their political support or their money, or both. I thought of this when reading the long investigation The Washington Post published the other day on the byzantine network of organizations the Koch brothers have established or funded to funnel their ample resources into politics. There are dozens of groups involved, and money moves back and forth between them in intricate ways. The Post was able to trace $400 million they spent in the last election, but since there were a number of organizations whose money they weren't able to track, the real number is almost certainly higher. As a tax law expert quoted in the article says, "It is a very sophisticated and complicated structure ... It's designed to make it opaque as to where the money is coming from and where the money is going. No layperson thought this up. It would only be worth it if you were spending the kind of dollars the Koch brothers are, because this was not cheap." The Koch brothers no doubt can avail themselves of the most skilled and creative accountants money can buy.

But they sure didn't get much for their money. Barack Obama, you might have noticed, is still the president, and Democrats did quite well overall in 2012. Perhaps there was no way for the Kochs to change that even with a mid-nine-figure investment. But what it appears happened is that these brothers, who are no doubt savvy businessmen, got taken to the cleaners by their consultants (Matt Yglesias had the same thought I did about this). You see, political consultants don't always have standard rates that they use for all their clients. On one end, this may mean that the firm accepts a smaller profit to do some work for a do-gooder nonprofit. On the other end, it means that for a client the consultant knows has deep pockets, the same services will be marked up, maybe by a little, maybe by a lot. If you were a Republican polling firm and the Kochs came to you asking you to do a poll that you ordinarily charge $50,000 for, maybe you could just bump that up to $75,000. They probably won't notice the difference, after all. And maybe you convince them that they need to conduct six or eight such polls over the course of the year. The direct mail consultants are doing the same thing, and you can bet the media consultants are doing it too, because those guys pull money from clients like nobody's business. And it isn't like the Kochs are going to be going over the contracts line by line, right? Each individual consultant may only be padding his own bottom line by $50,000 here or $100,000 there, but there are so many people involved and so many millions passing hither and yon that by the time its over, the results at the ballot box may be discouraging but a lot of already successful Republican consultants are thinking it's finally time to get that beach house.

There's another scam going on at the same time, which is that many of these efforts are aimed at recruiting regular people to be the Koch's ground troops, to put a "grassroots" face on what is most assuredly an elite project. The Kochs have sincerely held political beliefs, which by pure coincidence happen to line up perfectly with their economic interests. They'd like it if there were fewer regulations on corporate behavior and lower taxes on the rich, among other things (that isn't to say they don't also have beliefs on non-economic topics like abortion as well, because I'm sure they do). If you can convince a bunch of middle-class folk to go stand outside in their tricorner hats braying about the Founders and the Constitution as they press Congress to lighten the burdens on our nation's beleaguered plutocrats, then it's all worth it....So the Kochs are getting scammed by their consultants, and they're scamming the people whom those consultants are persuading, and meanwhile there are plenty of other scams around too. Today Rush Limbaugh went on the air and told his millions of listeners that the "polar vortex" is not an actual thing that meteorologists have documented, but something the media made up in order to make the current cold wave not contradict their existing global warming hoax. Does Rush Limbaugh believe this? I doubt it. But treating his audience like a bunch of gullible fools is part of his business model.

You can find regular people who think that if "global warming" were real, that would mean it will never get cold again. But that's not because they're dumb (though they may be). It's because that's what people they trust have been telling them for years. Every winter, whenever there's a cold snap or a big snowfall, a parade of doltish Fox anchors goes on the air hour after hour to say, "So much for global warming! Suck it, Al Gore!" Or as Ted Cruz said today, "It's cold! Al Gore told me this wouldn't happen!" Har, har! And those Republican voters, made ever stupider by the media figures they adore, make sure the people who represent them won't allow anything to be done to address climate change. And you know who benefits from that? Why Charles and David Koch, who are in the oil business. They make money, the consultants make money, Rush Limbaugh makes money, and the only people in the equation who don't make money are the suckers at the bottom.

[Demeter]

11. What happened to US life expectancy?

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/chart-what-happened-to-us-life-expectancy/



Why did the US fall behind the OECD median in the mid-1980s for men and the early 1990s for women? Note, the answer need not point to the health system. But, if it does, it’s not the first chart to show things going awry with it around that time. Before I quote the authors’ answer, here’s a related chart from the paper:



The chart shows years of potential life lost in the US as a multiple of the OECD median and over time. Values greater than 1 are bad (for the US). There are plenty of those. A value of exactly 1 would mean the US is at the OECD median. Below one would indicate we’re doing better. There’s not many of those.

It’d be somewhat comforting if the US at least showed improvement over time. But, by and large, it does not. For many conditions, you can see the US pulling away from the OECD countries beginning in/around 1980 or 1990, as was the case for life expectancy shown above. Why? The authors’ answer:

Possible causes of this departure from international norms were highlighted in a 2013 Institute of Medicine report and have been ascribed to many factors, only some of which are attributed to medical care financing or delivery. These include differences in cultural norms that affect healthy behaviors (gun ownership, unprotected sex, drug use, seat belts), obesity, and risk of trauma. Others are directly or indirectly attributable to differences in care, such as delays in treatment due to lack of insurance and fragmentation of care between different physicians and hospitals. Some have also suggested that unfavorable US performance is explained by higher risk of iatrogenic disease, drug toxicity, hospital-acquired infection, and a cultural preference to “do more,” with a bias toward new technology, for which risks are understated and benefits are unknown. However, the breadth and consistency of the US underperformance across disease categories suggests that the United States pays a penalty for its extreme fragmentation, financial incentives that favor procedures over comprehensive longitudinal care, and absence of organizational strategy at the individual system level. [Link added.]

This is deeply unsatisfying, though it may be the best explanation available. Nevertheless, the sentence in bold is purely speculative. One must admit that it is plausible that fragmentation, incentives for procedures, and lack of organizational strategy could play a role in poor health outcomes in the US — they certainly don’t help — but the authors have also ticked off other factors. Which, if any, dominate? It’s completely unclear.

Apart from the explanation or lack thereof, I also wonder how much welfare has been lost relative to the counterfactual that the US kept pace with the OECD in life expectancy and health spending. It’s got to be enormous unless there are offsetting gains in areas of life other than longevity and physical well-being. For example, if lifestyle is a major contributing factor, perhaps doing and eating what we want (to the extent we’re making choices) is more valuable than lower mortality and morbidity. (I doubt it, but that’s my speculation/opinion.)

[Demeter]

12. Rich Danes Face Benefit Cuts as Universal Welfare Abandoned

YEAH, WELL, AUSTERIANS ARE ALL OVER, LIKE BEDBUGS

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-07/richest-danes-face-benefit-cuts-as-universal-welfare-abandoned.html

Denmark’s richest citizens are finding themselves cut off from some welfare benefits as Scandinavia’s weakest nation reviews state-paid services once considered a universal right.

“We’ll see a welfare state that is gradually optimized to work under the conditions of globalization and global competition,” Danish Finance Minister Bjarne Corydon said yesterday in an interview in Copenhagen. “We continually alter priorities and financing to optimize the model.”

Denmark is the Scandinavian nation that has fared worst during the global financial crisis after a housing boom that peaked in 2007 burst a year later. Though Danish households are the world’s most indebted, the AAA-rated government has kept its borrowings at half the euro area average, in part after refusing to bail out insolvent banks and instead pushing losses onto creditors.

Alongside those measures are efforts to ensure state spending doesn’t grow unmanageable. Danes, who carry the world’s highest tax burden, have punished the Social Democrat-led government of Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt for their lost benefits and most polls show her coalition trails behind the opposition ahead of elections due November 2015 at the latest...

AT LEAST THEY GET SOMETHING FOR THEIR TAXES...NOT UNENDING WAR

[Demeter]

13. The War Over Poverty Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/opinion/krugman-the-war-over-poverty.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

Fifty years have passed since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. And a funny thing happened on the way to this anniversary. Suddenly, or so it seems, progressives have stopped apologizing for their efforts on behalf of the poor, and have started trumpeting them instead. And conservatives find themselves on the defensive....It wasn’t supposed to be this way. For a long time, everyone knew — or, more accurately, “knew” — that the war on poverty had been an abject failure. And they knew why: It was the fault of the poor themselves. But what everyone knew wasn’t true, and the public seems to have caught on...The narrative went like this: Antipoverty programs hadn’t actually reduced poverty, because poverty in America was basically a social problem — a problem of broken families, crime and a culture of dependence that was only reinforced by government aid. And because this narrative was so widely accepted, bashing the poor was good politics, enthusiastically embraced by Republicans and some Democrats, too. Yet this view of poverty, which may have had some truth to it in the 1970s, bears no resemblance to anything that has happened since.

For one thing, the war on poverty has, in fact, achieved quite a lot. It’s true that the standard measure of poverty hasn’t fallen much. But this measure doesn’t include the value of crucial public programs like food stamps and the earned-income tax credit. Once these programs are taken into account, the data show a significant decline in poverty, and a much larger decline in extreme poverty. Other evidence also points to a big improvement in the lives of America’s poor: lower-income Americans are much healthier and better-nourished than they were in the 1960s...Furthermore, there is strong evidence that antipoverty programs have long-term benefits, both to their recipients and to the nation as a whole. For example, children who had access to food stamps were healthier and had higher incomes in later life than people who didn’t.

And if progress against poverty has nonetheless been disappointingly slow — which it has — blame rests not with the poor but with a changing labor market, one that no longer offers good wages to ordinary workers. Wages used to rise along with worker productivity, but that linkage ended around 1980. The bottom third of the American work force has seen little or no rise in inflation-adjusted wages since the early 1970s; the bottom third of male workers has experienced a sharp wage decline. This wage stagnation, not social decay, is the reason poverty has proved so hard to eradicate. Or to put it a different way, the problem of poverty has become part of the broader problem of rising income inequality, of an economy in which all the fruits of growth seem to go to a small elite, leaving everyone else behind.

So how should we respond to this reality? The conservative position, essentially, is that we shouldn’t respond. Conservatives are committed to the view that government is always the problem, never the solution; they treat every beneficiary of a safety-net program as if he or she were “a Cadillac-driving welfare queen.” And why not? After all, for decades their position was a political winner, because middle-class Americans saw “welfare” as something that Those People got but they didn’t. But that was then. At this point, the rise of the 1 percent at the expense of everyone else is so obvious that it’s no longer possible to shut down any discussion of rising inequality with cries of “class warfare.” Meanwhile, hard times have forced many more Americans to turn to safety-net programs. And as conservatives have responded by defining an ever-growing fraction of the population as morally unworthy “takers” — a quarter, a third, 47 percent, whatever — they have made themselves look callous and mean-spirited. You can see the new political dynamics at work in the fight over aid to the unemployed. Republicans are still opposed to extended benefits, despite high long-term unemployment. But they have, revealingly, changed their arguments. Suddenly, it’s not about forcing those lazy bums to find jobs; it’s about fiscal responsibility. And nobody believes a word of it....Meanwhile, progressives are on offense. They have decided that inequality is a winning political issue. They see war-on-poverty programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and the earned-income tax credit as success stories, initiatives that have helped Americans in need — especially during the slump since 2007 — and should be expanded. And if these programs enroll a growing number of Americans, rather than being narrowly targeted on the poor, so what?

So guess what: On its 50th birthday, the war on poverty no longer looks like a failure. It looks, instead, like a template for a rising, increasingly confident progressive movement.

[Demeter]

14. Dan Cantor's Machine Harold Meyerson

http://prospect.org/article/dan-cantors-machine

New York’s Working Families Party has built the most effective political operation the American left has seen in decades. Can it duplicate its success in other states? Election night, New York City, November 5, 2013... Mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio, the candidate for both the Democratic and Working Families parties, is racking up a huge victory after running on a platform that calls for raising taxes on the rich and raising wages for workers. Shunning the usual Manhattan-hotel bash, de Blasio has decided to celebrate in a Brooklyn armory, where his supporters have gathered to mark the end of the Michael Bloomberg era and, they hope, the birth of a national movement for a more egalitarian economy. In one corner of the packed armory, Dan Cantor is talking with old friends and young activists who either work for him or used to—two groups that, combined, probably include about half the people in the hall....The hall is filled with dealmakers and operators importuning and texting one another. Cantor exhibits no such election-night mania, but his casual manner conceals an idealism, strategic acumen, and a record of political success that puts the dealmakers and operators to shame. Cantor is the national director of the Working Families Party (WFP), a social democratic political machine that in recent years has elected numerous progressives in New York and Connecticut. It has translated those victories into legislation that established paid sick days in New York City and Connecticut and abolished discriminatory drug laws and police “stop and frisk” practices in New York. Founded 15 years ago by Cantor and a handful of like-minded union leaders and community organizers, the WFP has grown from a third party taking advantage of New York state’s “fusion” laws (which permit a candidate to run as the nominee of more than one party) into a full-service political operation, the likes of which are to be found nowhere else in progressive America—indeed, nowhere else in any wing of American politics.

This election night marks a high point for the Working Families Party. Not only is the mayor-elect a longtime ally—the party managed his successful 2009 campaign for the post of public advocate—but both victorious candidates for the two other citywide offices, Letitia James and Scott Stringer, are WFP stalwarts as well. Ken Thompson, with the party’s backing, has ousted longtime Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes; his campaign focused on raising the age for incarceration in general-population prisons from 16 to 18. More impressive still, 12 of the 13 candidates the WFP ran for city council have also swept to victory. In January, when the new council convenes, 20 of the city’s 51 councilmen and –women will be dues-paying members of the Progressive Caucus, which functions, roughly, as the party’s legislative bloc.

The night’s victories are not confined to New York City. Around the state, dozens of local candidates whom the party recruited, groomed, and ran for office are winning races for city council and county legislatures from Syracuse to Rosendale. In Connecticut, a slate of candidates in Bridgeport has won a hotly contested election to the school board. Across the Hudson River, a brigade of the party’s canvassers has helped turn out voters in support of a ballot measure that raised New Jersey’s minimum wage...

[Demeter]

15. The Mythical Monolith: Latinos have the power to revolutionize US politics.But 1st they have to vote

http://prospect.org/article/myth-of-the-sleeping-latino-giant#.UtAL7GQQZwo

Ever since a wave of mass migration from Latin America began to transform the country’s demographic landscape in the 1970s, political analysts have spoken about the “sleeping giant” of the Latino vote. Every election season, like a spectator staring through binoculars on safari, someone jumps to exclaim that the beast is rousing, prompting others to claim that, yes, they spotted it, too. “The giant is awake,” Harry Pachon, then-head of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, told The Miami Herald in 1988, the same year The New York Times made much ado about the fact that both Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush spoke Spanish. “The symbolism,” the Times wrote, “has not been lost on members of the long-neglected but fast-growing Latino population, who feel they have finally come of age politically.” That year, 3.7 million Latinos gave Dukakis, the Democrat, 69 percent of their votes.

To judge by media accounts, the sleeping giant has had quite a time since then. In 1992, he “lapsed into a coma.” Anti-immigrant rhetoric surrounding passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was said to have revived him, though it was unclear whether he “got up on the same side of the bed” as Republicans or Democrats. By 2000, not only was the beast “fully awake” but he was “making a pot of coffee,” then “tying [his] shoes, getting ready to play, preparing ... to lead this nation.” He “flexed [his] muscles at the polls” in 2004. Perhaps annoyed by all the interruptions, by 2008 he was “in a foul mood.” Then, it seems, he lost his temper.

“The sleeping Latino giant is wide awake, cranky, and it’s taking names,” Eliseo Medina, then the secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said in November 2012 shortly after election results rolled in. By supporting “self-deportation”—basically, making life for the nearly 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country so miserable they choose to leave—Mitt Romney had embraced the anti-immigrant wing of his party. In a year characterized by the rhetoric of Republicans like Congressman Steve King of Iowa—who told Newsmax that for every child of an undocumented immigrant who became a valedictorian, there were “another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and have got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert”—11.2 million Latino voters responded by flocking to the polls and going heavily for Democrats, awarding President Barack Obama 71 percent of their support. That’s triple their numbers in 1988 and approximately 1.5 million more than in 2008, accounting for 8.4 percent of the electorate.
Latinos made up 8.4 percent of the electorate in 2012, but only 11.2 of the 23.3 million eligible to vote cast ballots.

But there’s a problem with the “awakening giant” story: Most Latinos who are eligible to vote still don’t....

MORE

[Demeter]

17. Want to Rock the Vote? Fill the Election Assistance Commission. Abby Rapoport

http://prospect.org/article/want-rock-vote-fill-election-assistance-commission

Long lines and broken machines could be fixed with proper oversight. All congress needs to do is fill the empty slots on the "zombie commission."

MORE

[Ghost Dog]

16. Big Society, huh.

[Demeter]

19. Hey there, GD! How is your weather?

Still in the Islands?

[Ghost Dog]

26. Cool, calm now, thanks.

[center][/center]

Western Isles received blessed rain, hail and snow. We orientals are still arid.

The music, the musicians, the spirit here just get better and better...

You stay warm and relax, you hear?

[center][/center]

[Demeter]

20. The PEOPLE vs. the STATE SubThread

We’ve Known for Some Time that the NSA Is Spying On Congress

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/spying-congress.html

What It Really Means...The NSA pretty much admitted to spying on Congress this week.AND It’s not the first time. David Sirota notes:

When I asked U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) if the NSA was keeping files on his colleagues, he recounted a meeting between NSA officials and lawmakers in the lead-up to a closely contested House vote to better regulate the agency:

“One of my colleagues asked the NSA point blank will you give me a copy of my own record and the NSA said no, we won’t. They didn’t say no we don’t have one. They said no we won’t. So that’s possible.”

Grayson is right: presumably, if the NSA wasn’t tracking lawmakers, it would have flatly denied it. Instead, those officials merely denied lawmakers access to whatever files the agency might have. That suggests one of two realities: 1) the NSA is keeping files on lawmakers 2) the NSA isn’t keeping files on lawmakers, but answered vaguely in order to stoke fear among legislators that it is.

Sirota notes the danger of even the threat of spying on the legislature:

Regardless of which of these realities happens to be the case, the mere existence of legitimate fears of congressional surveillance by an executive-branch agency is a serious legal and separation-of-powers problem. Why? Because whether or not the surveillance is actually happening, the very real possibility that it even could be happening or has happened can unduly intimidate the legislative branch into abrogating its constitutional oversight responsibilities. In this particular case, it can scare congressional lawmakers away from voting to better regulate the NSA.

And the Atlantic points out:

Access to that telephone metadata would be extremely useful for manipulating the legislature.

***

Should anyone doubt how much mischief could come from spying on even one member of Congress, let’s look back at the story of former Democratic Representative Jane Harman and what happened when the NSA intercepted and transcribed one of her telephone calls. That’s right: There’s a known instance in which a legislator’s private communications were captured by the NSA, though it’s a complicated story….

The story begins with the NSA surveilling two Israeli nationals suspected of being spies. Unbeknownst to them, their phone calls were being recorded by the NSA–and one day, a conversation with Harman got swept up in the ongoing wiretap. No one on the call knew it was being recorded.

“One of the leading House Democrats on intelligence matters was overheard on telephone calls intercepted by the National Security Agency agreeing to seek lenient treatment from the Bush administration for two pro-Israel lobbyists who were under investigation for espionage,” the New York Times reported on April 20, 2009, following up on a story broken by Congressional Quarterly’s Jeff Stein.

***

Congressional Quarterly reported that a criminal case against Harman was dropped because she was a useful ally to the Bush Administration:

Justice Department attorneys in the intelligence and public corruption units who read the transcripts decided that Harman had committed a “completed crime,” a legal term meaning that there was evidence that she had attempted to complete it, three former officials said. And they were prepared to open a case on her, which would include electronic surveillance approved by the so-called FISA Court …

First, however, they needed the certification of top intelligence officials that Harman’s wiretapped conversations justified a national security investigation … But that’s when, according to knowledgeable officials, Attorney General Gonzales intervened. According to two officials privy to the events, Gonzales said he “needed Jane” to help support the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the New York Times.

Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story before, on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program.

He was right.

On Dec. 21, 2005, in the midst of a firestorm of criticism about the wiretaps, Harman issued a statement defending the operation and slamming the Times, saying, “I believe it essential to U.S. national security, and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.”

We noted last month that the NSA has previously spied on congress members for improper purposes:

During the Vietnam war, the NSA spied on two prominent politicians – Senators Frank Church and Howard Baker – as well as critics of government policy Muhammad Ali, Martin Luther King, and a Washington Post humorist.

A recently declassified history written by the NSA itself called the effort “disreputable if not outright illegal.”

The main whistleblower who revealed the Vietnam-era spying was Christopher H. Pyle. Pyle told Rob Kall of OpEdNews:

They targeted Sen. Frank Church and Sen. Howard Baker. It could mean they were trying to get information or dirt on senators involved in the Church committee and Watergate committee investigations respectively — either to learn something about their investigations or to discredit them.

***

We still need more information about what happened then. But more critically, we need more information about what’s happening now. These revelations raise the obvious question: If the NSA was targeting people like Sen. Frank Church, who were in a position to oversee the NSA — is that happening now? That is, are people like intelligence committee chairs Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and other congressional leaders — who are supposed to be providing oversight themselves — compromised in some way by the NSA? If so, as seems quite certain from the recent Edward Snowden revelations, then how can they conduct genuine oversight of the NSA with their committees?”

***

If I were a member of congress, I would be terrified that NSA would do to them what J. Edgar Hoover did to members back during his time.

Sound paranoid?

Maybe. But remember:

The NSA has been tracking people’s porn in order to discredit them. The New York Times reports that this type of behavior has been going on for a long time: “J. Edgar Hoover compiled secret dossiers on the sexual peccadillos and private misbehavior of those he labeled as enemies — really dangerous people like … President John F. Kennedy, for example”.

A high-level NSA whistleblower says that the NSA is spying on – and blackmailing – top government officials and military officers, including Supreme Court Justices, high-ranked generals, Colin Powell and other State Department personnel, and many other top officials

Another very high-level NSA whistleblower – the head of the NSA’s global intelligence gathering operation – says that the NSA targeted CIA chief Petraeus

Blackmail of Congress members may be common

Indeed, because the NSA’s raw information is shared with Israel, it is possible that the Israeli government is blackmailing our congress members. The Guardian reported in September:

The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.

***

According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications. “NSA routinely sends ISNU [the Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection”, it says.

***

A much stricter rule was set for US government communications found in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to “destroy upon recognition” any communication “that is either to or from an official of the US government“. Such communications included those of “officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the supreme court)”.

And it’s not just the NSA.

Last year, Eric Holder refused to say whether the Department of Justice was spying on Congress.

When one branch of government spies on another, “America has no functioning democracy”.

[Demeter]

21. WikiLeaks’ Assange: Sysadmins of the World, Unite!

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/12/wikileaks-assange-sysadmins-world-unite/

Faced with increasing encroachments on privacy and free speech, high-tech workers around the world should identify as a class and fight power together, said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Sunday.

In a video speech to the Chaos Communication Congress (CCC) here, Assange drew parallels between the labor movements of the industrial age and the technology workers of today. As workers joined into unions to fight for better working conditions, technology workers should unite to fight government encroachments on Internet and speech freedoms, he said.

System administrators, who have access to confidential government or corporate documents, have particular ability to play a role in what he painted as a new class war, he said.

“We can see that in the case of WikiLeaks, or the Snowden revelations, it’s possible for even a single system administrator to have very significant constructive effect,” he said. “This is not merely wrecking or disabling, not going on strikes, but rather shifting information from an information apartheid system from those with extraordinary power … to the digital commons.”

MORE

[Demeter]

22. CORPORATE WRONG-DOING SUBTHREAD

SAC's Martoma tried to cover up fraud at Harvard, documents show

http://news.yahoo.com/sac-39-martoma-tried-cover-fraud-harvard-documents-004432970--sector.html

Years before he was accused of insider trading, former SAC Capital Advisors portfolio manager Mathew Martoma forged a Harvard transcript, falsified an email, and created a dummy forensic computing company to try to cover his tracks, according to a court document unsealed on Thursday.

Martoma was eventually expelled from Harvard Law School over the incident, according to the document, which began with his forging a Harvard transcript to submit an application for a clerkship.

The revelations, which date back to 1999, came as government and defense lawyers prepared to make their opening statements in Martoma's high-profile insider trading trial on Friday.

Martoma's lawyers on Thursday lost a battle to keep the facts surrounding Martoma's expulsion from Harvard Law out of his insider trading trial....MORE

[Demeter]

23. Wall Street Predicts $50 Billion Bill to Settle U.S. Mortgage Suits

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/wall-street-predicts-50-billion-bill-to-settle-u-s-mortgage-suits/

Wall Street could pay nearly $50 billion to buy peace from federal authorities who are taking aim at the banks over their role in the mortgage crisis, according to interviews and a confidential analysis of the industry’s potential legal exposure.

Bracing for a potential reckoning, the banks and their outside lawyers are quietly using JPMorgan Chase’s record $13 billion mortgage settlement in November to do the math and determine just how much each bank might have to pay to move beyond the torrent of government mortgage litigation that has dogged them since the financial crisis. Such calculations, people briefed on the matter said, have gained particular urgency among the banks’ board members.

If the settlements materialize, they could yield, according to the analysis, $15 billion in relief for consumers — a mixture of cash payments and other assistance, like reductions in the size of homeowners’ loan payments. A payment of $50 billion, made up of a string of separate deals, would amount to roughly half the total annual profit of large American banks in 2012. The $50 billion figure does not include JPMorgan’s $13 billion payout, which means the ultimate industry tab could exceed $60 billion, according to the analysis.

The JPMorgan settlement has stepped up the pressure on other banks to strike their own separate deals in the coming months, some top bank executives say. When the JPMorgan settlement was announced, the Justice Department official who took the lead in brokering the deal, Tony West, said it could offer a model for other financial institutions being investigated in their sales of troubled mortgage investments. The government made JPMorgan a test case, knowing the nation’s largest bank, facing a wide swath of legal woes, was vulnerable. The $13 billion deal has left some on Wall Street worried that the cost of their own deals will now be inflated, the people said....MORE...“Yes, $50 billion is a big number,” Gerard Cassidy, a bank analyst with RBC Capital Markets, said. “But it is manageable for the 16 banks, and the industry wants to put this behind them.”

[Demeter]

24. Diamond Foods agrees to pay $5 million to settle SEC case

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-diamond-foods-fraud-20140110,0,6960689.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fbusiness+%28L.A.+Times+-+Business%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo



By Walter Hamilton

January 9, 2014, 5:24 p.m.

Snack-food maker Diamond Foods Inc. agreed to pay $5 million to settle allegations that the company cooked its books. The Securities and Exchange Commission alleged Thursday that Diamond boosted its earnings and stock price in 2010 and 2011 by systematically underreporting payments to walnut growers.

The SEC also charged two former Diamond executives. Former Chief Executive Michael Mendes agreed to pay $125,000 to settle a charge that he should have known the accounting was bogus. Mendes neither admitted nor denied guilt. The SEC alleged that Steven Neil, Diamond's former chief financial officer, orchestrated the scheme. The case against Neil is continuing.

Soaring walnut prices in 2010 forced Diamond to substantially increase payments to farmers, according to the SEC. But booking the extra costs would have damaged the earnings of a company that had become an investor favorite. Neil responded with "a scheme to have it both ways," according to the SEC. The San Francisco company made special payments to the walnut growers but delayed recording the outlays on its financial statements until later accounting periods, according to the SEC. Neil later misled the company's auditors about the payments, the SEC alleged.

Neil's attorney, Michael Shepard, disputed the SEC allegations...MORE

[Vic Vinegar]

27. Johnson and Kennedy really believed in the New Deal

Problem is Johnson forgot the New Deal was also about expanding production via the American System of Economics. Unfortunately Johnson contributed to deindustrialization of the nation. I do believe though for some time the minimum wage was around $10 in 2013 dollars in 1968, which was wonderful. Of course, every Fed chairman after that pretty much destroyed productive industry in the united states and the fall of Bretton Woods didn't help either.

I would say, expand social security, medicare, medicaid, restore the welfare that Bill Clinton gutted , but make sure that you have a recovery plan for 30 Million new productive jobs, and let 11 million immigrants become US citizens. The primary problem with entitlements is that there is not enough young people to pay for them since the birth rate is slowing--so get immigration coming in and get families at a comfortable financial level to push out 4 kids each who will get high-tech industrial jobs. The programs will be right back on track with a growing population, growing production and the occasional singularity in technology.

And don't let any Malthusian population scare tactics get in your way, there is no fixed limit to population capacity on Earth or in the systems.

[Demeter]

30. Thank you Vic, and Welcome to WEE!

Set down and stay a spell...we are here every Friday night, if the Lord is willing and the creek don't rise.

[hamerfan]

28. Musical Interlude

The Ghost Of Tom Joad done by Tom Morello:

[Demeter]

29. Pathetic, but true

[Demeter]

31. Happy Saturday, Weekenders!

It's 41F this dark and dreary morning. The snow piles don't look much smaller, but they are sure to be water-logged after a night's rain. A fog fills the darkness.

The sun has officially risen at 8:02, but you couldn't tell by looking. I will be forced out into that drowned and frozen world, but first, the thread must go on!

[Demeter]

49. Travel Advisory: WASHTENAW COUNTY SHERRIF'S OFFICE

Last edited Sat Jan 11, 2014, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)

All side roads and dirt roads are ice covered and very slippery. No further info available at this time...

Textile and Campbell roads are closed due to several spin outs. Dirt roads are extremely icy, use caution when driving.


Secondary roads throughout the county are ice covered and are unsafe for travel.

[Demeter]

32. U.S. Politicians Want to Fast-Track the Super-Secret, Super-Controversial TPP

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiations_bill_would_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.html



...The TPP is already being negotiated behind closed doors, but the situation could get worse. Late on Thursday afternoon, House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014. The bill would grant the White House fast-track authority, sometimes known as the "trade promotion authority,” to ratify trade deals. If the bill passes, it would allow agreements like TPP to be ratified by a straight up-and-down vote, with no amendments allowed from the floor, and lawmakers would have to forgo procedural stalling tactics like the filibuster. That’s a great deal of oversight power for Congress to abdicate over a deal that not many people have even read.

Apart from a few corporations, most stakeholders and public interest groups have been unable to read the TPP drafts in full. Even those in government have complained that their staff cannot access the negotiating text. As Wisconsin Republican Mark Pocan said in reponse to the new bill: “Blindly approving or disapproving agreements that have largely been negotiated in secret would represent a derelict of duty for Congress. If there is nothing to hide in these agreements, we should be allowed to debate and amend these deals in the open.”

The introduction of fast-track authority is of particular concern for technology companies, digital rights groups, and even public health advocates, who are all concerned about the treaty’s copyright and patent provisions. Leaked versions of the TPP indicate that it moves negotiating countries toward stricter and extended intellectual property laws—for instance, greater criminalization of copyright breaches and regulations that might force Internet service providers to censor content.

When introducing the bill, the three U.S. lawmakers said in a statement: “The TPA [trade promotion authority] legislation we are introducing today will make sure that these trade deals get done, and get done right.” They argued that the fast-track authority would support a robust trade agenda that would benefit American workers and exports.

The good news? The New York Times reports that it’s not likely the bill will be passed...

BUT THAT'S NO REASON TO SLACK OFF! KEEP THOSE CALLS, EMAILS, LETTERS COMING. TELL YOUR ACQUAINTANCE ABOUT THIS SCURVY DEAL.

STOP THE TPP!

[xchrom]

33. CGI to Be Replaced by Accenture on Obamacare Contract

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/cgi-to-be-replaced-by-accenture-on-obamaacre-contract.html

CGI Group Inc. (GIB), the company that built the main Obamacare website, will be replaced next month when its contract with the U.S. federal government expires, a person familiar with the decision said.

The Obama administration intends to sign a contract with Dublin-based Accenture Plc (ACN) to complete unfinished work on healthcare.gov and run the site, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the decision isn’t public. Montreal-based CGI fell 2.9 percent, to $31.58 in New York.

The Oct. 1 debut of the insurance exchange serving 36 of the 50 U.S. states was plagued by delays, error messages and hang-ups that prevented people from completing applications. Accenture, the second-largest technology-consulting company, led construction of California’s better-performing state system.

“We are working with our contract partners to make a mutually agreed upon transition to ensure that healthcare.gov continues to operate smoothly for consumers,” Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in an e-mail without confirming the decision.

[Demeter]

34. Obama’s Fed team takes shape with Fischer, Brainard (TRYING TO RING-FENCE YELLEN)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamas-fed-team-takes-shape-with-fischer-brainard-2014-01-10?siteid=YAHOOB

President Barack Obama’s team at the Federal Reserve took shape Friday when he announced he intended to nominate Stanley Fischer and Lael Brainard to the central bank’s board of governors.

The selections have an international feel. Fischer has most recently been the head of the Bank of Israel. He also spent two decades in Washington dealing with global economic crises as the No.2 at the International Monetary Fund.

Brainard was the Obama administration’s point person on global economic matters as Treasury undersecretary for international affairs. In that role, she often met with finance ministers from the world’s leading economies and represented the United States at global economic forums like the G-20.

Obama also announced that he intended to re-nominate Jerome Powell to a full 14-year term on the Fed board. Powell, a former investment banker and veteran of Republican administrations, joined the central bank board in 2012...

YES, IT'S POLITICAL PLUM TIME! TIME TO PUT THE PEOPLE IN THEIR PLACE BY FILLING THE POWER SEATS WITH THE CREME DE LA CREME OF ELITISTS...

[xchrom]

35. Obama Anti-Poverty Theme Trickles Down as Republicans Grab Issue

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/obama-anti-poverty-theme-trickles-down-as-republicans-grab-issue.html


President Barack Obama has taken control of the economic debate.

After spending much of the past three years parrying Republican deficit-reduction demands, Obama now has leading members of the opposition party reacting to his policy thrusts.

A 52 percent decline in the federal budget deficit since 2009 has quieted austerity talk and left the traditional Democratic theme of income inequality atop the political agenda. The latest sign: yesterday’s dueling anti-poverty speeches by the president and Representative Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House Budget Committee.

The new Republican focus on ways to promote upward mobility comes after three decades of placing low taxes at the heart of all economic debates, a philosophy Democrats deride as “trickle-down theory.” This week, an economic discussion that Mitt Romney, the Republican 2012 presidential nominee, once said should be confined to “quiet rooms” spilled into public view.

[Demeter]

39. 5 years too late, but...give him faint praise for finally listening

at least for Public Relations purposes....

[xchrom]

36. Debt Rule Faces Dilution as Regulators Heed Bank Warnings

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/debt-rule-faces-dilution-as-global-regulators-heed-bank-warnings.html

Lenders are poised to win concessions from central bank chiefs and global regulators over a debt limit they criticized as a blunt instrument that would penalize low-risk activities and curtail lending.

A revised leverage-ratio plan is set to be laxer than a draft published last year by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, said a person familiar with the scope of a Jan. 12 meeting of the group’s oversight body at which the measure will be discussed.

Leverage ratios are designed to curb banks’ reliance on debt by setting a minimum standard for how much capital they must hold as a percentage of all assets on their books. A quarter of large global lenders would have failed to meet the draft version of the leverage limit had it been in force at the end of 2012, according to data published by the committee in September.

“I expect considerable change in the rule to defer to applicable national accounting systems,” Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner of Washington-based research firm Federal Financial Analytics Inc., said in an e-mail. “If the rule in fact doesn’t do this, it will wreak tremendous havoc in securities financing, repo, and other capital-market activities and send them over to the shadows.”

[Demeter]

40. Those activities belong in the shadows

so that taxpayers are not even remotely on the hook when it all goes pop.

[Demeter]

37. Many Democrats support House Obamacare security proposal

OH, THIS IS RICH! THINK THEY WILL SQUEAL ON THE NSA?

http://news.yahoo.com/dozens-democrats-support-house-proposal-obamacare-security-161612525.html

A bill targeting potential security problems with the Obamacare website passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Friday with the support of dozens of Democrats, despite opposition from the White House. The House voted 291-122 to approve legislation by Republican Representative Joe Pitts that would require the government to notify Americans within two days if their personal information has been compromised on the federal website, HealthCare.gov, where consumers can shop and buy health insurance.

The bill has little chance of passage in the Democratic-run Senate. But it allowed Republicans to amplify their anti-Obamacare message while letting Democrats go on record as having cast a vote critical of the health care program, in case they think they need it during their campaigns. Supporters said the proposal was justified because the administration did not properly test the website before launching it on October 1, and the site had suffered from many glitches afterwards.

"Since the disastrous rollout of the HealthCare.gov website, congressional oversight has uncovered that end-to-end security testing of HealthCare.gov did not occur before the October 1st launch, and that high-ranking administration officials were told of the security risks before the website went live," Pitts said.

The Obamacare website collects personal data such as names, birth dates, email addresses and other information that criminals could use for a variety of scams. But opponents of the bill said there had been no security breaches of the website. They denounced the proposal as a scare tactic aimed at undermining President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law by discouraging people from signing up for insurance online.

The Republicans are "trying to address a reality that is not there," Representative Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat, said during debate.

STICK YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND, FRANK...

[Demeter]

38. For Target, the Breach Numbers Grow

MEANWHILE, BACK IN THE "PRIVATE" SECTOR...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/business/target-breach-affected-70-million-customers.html

Target on Friday revised the number of customers whose personal information was stolen in a widespread data breach during the holiday season, now reporting a range of 70 million to 110 million people.

The stunning figure represents about a third of all American adults at the low end, and is nearly three times as great as the company’s original estimate at the upper end. The theft is one of the largest ever of retail data.

Not only did Target’s announcement disclose a vastly expanded universe of victims, but it revealed that the hackers had stolen a broader trove of data than originally reported. The company now says that other kinds of information were taken, including mailing and email addresses, phone numbers or names, the kind of data routinely collected from customers during interactions like shopping online or volunteering a phone number when using a call center.

On Dec. 19, Target confirmed reports that payment data was stolen from about 40 million customers who shopped in its stores in the United States from Nov. 27 to mid-December. As its investigation into the theft continued, the company said it had found that an additional quantity of data, collected over time on 70 million people and stored separately from the in-store data, was stolen...

WEEKENDERS, I'M BEGINNING TO THINK CASH IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO.... CLEAN, UNTRACEABLE CASH.

[Demeter]

45. Neiman Marcus Says Hackers Stole Credit Card Data

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/10/261474867/neiman-marcus-says-hackers-stole-credit-card-data?ft=1&f=1001



Upscale retailer Neiman Marcus isn't yet saying how many customers might be at risk, but it is confirming that a breach of credit card data took place. The company says it learned of "potentially unauthorized payment card activity" before Christmas. The company says it is working with federal investigators, and a forensics team is trying to determine the size of the breach.

The digital security expert Brian Krebs today:

"Earlier this week, I began hearing from sources in the financial industry about an increasing number of fraudulent credit and debit card charges that were being traced to cards that had been very recently used at brick-and-mortar stores run by the Dallas, Texas based high-end retail chain."

Krebs also says that a Neiman Marcus representative says there's no sign that the hack is related to the attack on Target, which said today that may have been stolen....

[westerebus]

55. If the NSA is worth what it claims its worth..

it should have no problem in finding who breached the data and where those criminals are.

If they can't, their funding should be cut in half and their management fired.

[Demeter]

58. Second that!

If it's an inside job, though, they might not have any "access"

[Demeter]

41. $1.35 Billion In Losses Reported By Nevada's Major Casinos

IS IT A DEPRESSION, YET? HOW CAN A CASINO LOSE MONEY, ANYWAY?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/10/261466584/-1-35-billion-in-losses-reported-by-nevadas-major-casinos?ft=1&f=1001

Nevada's big casinos are on a losing streak. For the fifth straight year, the state's largest casinos are reporting net losses – in this case, a total of $1.35 billion in the most recent fiscal year. That's the news from a report released by the Friday, which focuses on casinos that gross at least $1 million in gaming revenue. The most recent data showed 263 such casinos in the state, generating gaming revenue of $10.4 billion (up 1.1 percent) and total revenue of $23 billion.

As a group, the large casinos have not reported a profit since 2008, reports, citing a state official. We'll note that according to the Gaming Board, the casinos' fiscal year ends on June 30. So, the newly released numbers reflect data up to last summer.

"Statewide, slot machines accounted for 64.9 percent of the gaming win of $10.3 billion. Table games produced 31.7 percent of gaming revenues," The Sun reports. "Casinos on the Las Vegas Strip produced $15.5 billion in total revenues, with 37 percent coming from gaming. The net loss on the Strip was $1.4 billion, or 13 percent less than 2012."

Gambling accounted for 45.1 percent of total revenues, with the remainder coming from hotel rooms (20.8 percent), food (15 percent), drinks (7.2 percent), and other attractions.

The major casinos paid $804 million in state taxes and fees, equal to 7.7 percent of their gaming revenues, the board says.

[Demeter]

42. THE (UN)EMPLOYMENT SUBTHREAD

U.S. job growth falters as cold weather grips nation

http://news.yahoo.com/solid-job-gains-seen-december-u-economy-picks-110815918--business.html

U.S. employers hired the fewest workers in nearly three years in December, but the setback was likely to be temporary amid signs that unusually cold weather may have had an impact.

The surprisingly weak job growth figures reported by the Labor Department on Friday, however, could cause some discomfort at the Federal Reserve, which last month announced plans to scale back its massive monetary stimulus program.

Nonfarm payrolls rose only 74,000 in December, the smallest increase since January 2011 and well short of the 200,000 jobs or so that most economists had expected.

While the unemployment rate fell 0.3 percentage point to 6.7 percent, its lowest level since October 2008, the decline mostly reflected people leaving the labor force....

Growth in Jobs Slows Sharply to 3-Year Low

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/business/economy/us-economy-added-only-74000-jobs-in-december.html

Just when it seemed as if the economy was finally accelerating, the latest employment figures once again confounded expectations of better days ahead.

The government said on Friday that employers added jobs at the slowest pace in three years in December, reversing three months of steadily rising hiring that had persuaded economists and policy-makers at the Federal Reserve that the labor market had finally turned the corner...the unexpectedly grim data immediately set off a debate among economists as to whether they were an anomaly or an indication of a more significant slowdown in the economy.

But even after accounting for factors like cold temperatures and snow that may have inhibited hiring, many experts cautioned that other trends, like average hourly earnings and the labor participation rate, were hardly encouraging.

“What it does say is that we’re not in takeoff mode in the labor market,” said Julia Coronado, chief United States economist at BNP Paribas. “It’s not so much weakness in hiring as lack of vitality. We’re treading water.”

... The work force shrank by 347,000 in December, reversing a big gain from November, and returning the proportion of Americans in the labor force to its October level of 62.8 percent, the lowest in 35 years...Among workers aged 45 to 54, the participation rate dropped 0.4 percentage point to 79.2 percent, the lowest since 1988. For workers 55 and older, the participation rate edged down only 0.1 percentage point. “It just keeps dropping and dropping,” she said. “It’s depressing, as it’s not just older workers retiring.”

INTERESTING CHOICE OF WORD THERE..."DEPRESSING"

Will Bad Jobless Data Spur Action On Unemployment Insurance?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/01/10/261458030/will-bad-jobless-data-spur-action-on-unemployment-insurance?ft=1&f=1001

Just as the Senate seemed to descend into another round of partisan gridlock, this time over extending emergency jobless benefits, the arrival of a surprisingly weak December jobs report raised the pressure on Congress to act.

The question is whether news that the economy created a mere 74,000 jobs last month — far fewer than the 200,000 forecasters predicted — delivered enough of a jolt to Capitol Hill, where what seemed like bipartisan progress on the issue early in the week had reverted to partisan nastiness.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used Friday's underwhelming jobs report to argue for Congress to extend the unemployment insurance program. "Today's report shows why Republicans must join with Democrats to immediately extend emergency unemployment insurance for the 1.4 million Americans whose benefits were cut off in December," he said...On Tuesday, legislation to extend jobless benefits surprisingly cleared a procedural hurdle in the Senate with bipartisan support. But things started coming apart after Reid denied Republicans the opportunity to offer amendments to the bill, charging them with obstruction and other acts of bad faith. That resulted in several Republicans withdrawing support.

By Friday, Reid was willing to consider a certain number of GOP amendments, so long as they were "relevant," a Reid aide told WAPO.

..........................



When the Senate returns to work next week, two unemployment insurance bills offered by Democrats will be waiting. A bill introduced by Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Dean Heller, R-Nev., would extend emergency jobless insurance benefits for only three months, the idea being that it would allow Congress to buy time to reach a longer deal. Majority Leader Reid, meanwhile, has offered a bill to extend benefits for 11 months. It would offset the $17 billion cost by extending the mandatory budget cuts from sequestration. For different reasons, Senate Republicans and some House Democrats aren't fans of that idea...

[Demeter]

46. No Jobs, No Benefits, and Lousy Pay NYT EDITORIAL

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/opinion/no-jobs-no-benefits-and-lousy-pay.html

There is nothing good to say about the December employment report, which showed that only 74,000 jobs were added last month. But dismal as it was, the report came at an opportune political moment. The new numbers rebut the Republican arguments that jobless benefits need not be renewed, and that the current minimum wage is adequate. At the same time, they underscore the need, only recently raised to the top of the political agenda, to combat poverty and inequality.

The report showed that average monthly job growth in 2013 was 182,000, basically unchanged from 2012. Even the decline in the jobless rate last month, from 7 percent in November to 6.7 percent, was a sign of weakness: It mainly reflects a shrinking labor force — not new hiring — as the share of workers employed or looking for work fell to the lowest level since 1978. That’s a tragic waste of human capital. It would be comforting to ascribe the dwindling labor force mainly to retirements or other long-term changes, but most of the decline is due to weak job opportunities and weak labor demand since the Great Recession. One result is that the share of jobless workers who have been unemployed for six months or longer has remained stubbornly high. In December, it was nearly 38 percent, still higher by far than at any time before the Great Recession, in records going back to 1948.

And yet, nearly 1.3 million of those long-term unemployed had their federal jobless benefits abruptly cut off at the end of last year, after Republicans refused to renew the federal unemployment program in the latest budget deal. Each week the program is not reinstated, another 72,000 jobless people who otherwise would have qualified for benefits will find there is no longer a federal program to turn to. Worse, in the Senate this week, after a show of willingness to discuss renewing the benefits, Republicans objected to a bill to do just that. They had demanded that a renewal be paid for, but they didn’t like how Democrats proposed to do that — with spending cuts at the end of the budget window in 2024 in exchange for relief today. There was no need to pay for the benefits, which have such a crucial and positive effect — on families, the economy and poverty — that it would be sound to renew them even if the government borrowed to do so. But Republicans would rather criticize President Obama’s handling of the economy than help those left behind.

A similar dynamic is developing around the drive for a higher minimum wage. In the December jobs report, the average hourly wage for most workers was $20.35. That means that the minimum wage, at $7.25 an hour, is only one-third of the average, rather than one-half, as was the case historically. Raising the wage to $10.10 an hour, as Democrats have proposed, would help to restore the historical relationship. But even that would fall far short of the roughly $17 an hour that workers at the bottom of the wage scale would be earning if increased labor productivity were reflected in their pay, rather than in corporate profits, executive compensation and shareholder returns. Republicans, however, are opposed to any increase, as if the numbers don’t speak for themselves. Their stance also dismisses research, and common sense, which says that raising the wages of low- and moderate-income workers is essential for lessening both poverty and inequality. Instead, in the past week, they have introduced ostensibly “antipoverty” ideas, most prominently Senator Marco Rubio’s plan to transform federal safety net programs into state block grants, another of the shopworn Republican ideas that also include privatizing federal services and slashing domestic spending. Block grants have allowed states to disregard the needs of the least fortunate. The proposal would set back the debate on wages, poverty and inequality.

The December jobs report is telling Congress what it needs to do. Unfortunately, that will not lead to action anytime soon.

[Demeter]

47. It’s Time to Update Overtime By ROSS EISENBREY

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/opinion/its-time-to-update-overtime.html

PRESIDENT OBAMA has assured American workers that he won’t let Congress keep him from lending a hand during these tough economic times. “I will not allow gridlock, inaction or willful indifference to get in our way,” he said in a speech last year. “Whatever executive authority I have to help the middle class, I’ll use it.”

The problem is that most presidential actions that could help significant numbers of middle-class workers do require congressional participation. But here’s one that doesn’t: raising the salary threshold for the exemption to the overtime rules of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The act establishes that most workers, after 40 hours of weekly work, are entitled to be paid 1.5 times their regular wage — a.k.a., overtime. Hourly paid workers fall into this class, as do salaried workers who make less than a specified “threshold” amount. The idea is that employees in higher-status positions (executives, administrators, professionals) ought to be exempt from receiving the overtime premium. But as with the minimum wage, which is not automatically adjusted for inflation and tends to lose real value unless it is raised, the overtime exemption threshold generally languishes. That means that many people who once would have been paid 1.5 times their wage when working overtime are not, violating the spirit of the law.

For decades, the Department of Labor periodically updated the overtime salary threshold. But today’s threshold, at $455 a week, is far below historical levels in real terms. And at just $2 a week more than a poverty-level income for a family of four, it is indefensibly low. I propose that President Obama raise the threshold to $970, equal in today’s dollars to the 1975 level of $250. In keeping with the original purpose of the overtime rules, this increase would make overtime pay more expensive, creating an incentive for employers to spread work among other workers (an important goal in today’s low-job-creation environment). It would also more fairly compensate those who do work more than 40 hours. Why do I suggest an updated 1975 value of $970? Because it would restore the proper relationship between the overtime salary threshold and today’s median wage. When the Ford administration raised the threshold in 1975, it was 1.6 times the median wage. Today’s median wage for 40 hours of work is about $670. Were we to update that value by the same 1.6 ratio that prevailed in the mid-1970s, we’d end up with a threshold above $1,000, suggesting that $970 is, if anything, on the low side. At the same time, an updated 1975 value would still leave higher-status positions exempt from the overtime protection. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median weekly earnings for manager-supervisors in various occupations range from $1,520 to $3,995, well above my proposed threshold.

You might worry that raising the overtime salary threshold would dampen hiring by creating higher labor costs. But there are good reasons not to expect this outcome. Research suggests that employers have a rough idea of how much overtime they will need from a given hire and adjust the base wage down accordingly. This means that at least some part of the burden of an increased overtime premium falls on the worker. But more important, if employers want to avoid paying overtime, they have an easy way to do so: Hire new workers to do the extra work at the standard wage. (This, again, was one of the objectives of the original law.) The overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act is still a vital contributor to the well-being of millions of American workers, but it needs updating to live up to its potential. At the same time, for President Obama to carry out his pledge to help working people with or without Congress’s participation, he needs policy reforms that make a difference but don’t require legislative approval. Raising the overtime salary threshold would be a simple solution to both problems.

Ross Eisenbrey is the vice president of the Economic Policy Institute.

[Demeter]

52. TELL HOUSE REPUBLICANS: RENEW UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS NOW! PETITION

http://action.thehousemajoritypac.com/page/s/renew-unemployment-now?source=em1.10.13

[Demeter]

63. No Jobs For Americans By Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37352.htm

The alleged recovery took a direct hit from Friday’s payroll jobs report. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the economy created 74,000 net new jobs in December. Wholesale and retail trade accounted for 70,700 of these jobs or 95.5%. It is likely that the December wholesale and retail hires were temporary for the Christmas shopping season, which doesn’t seem to have been very exuberant, especially in light of Macy’s decision to close five stores and lay off 2,500 employees. It is a good bet that these December hires have already been laid off. A job gain of 74,000, even if it is real, is about half of what is needed to keep the unemployment rate even with population growth. Yet the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the unemployment rate fell from 7.0% to 6.7%. Clearly, this decline in unemployment was not caused by the reported 74,000 jobs gain. The unemployment rate fell, because Americans unable to find jobs ceased looking for employment and, thereby, ceased to be counted as unemployed.

In America the unemployment rate is a deception just like everything else. The rate of American unemployment fell, because people can’t find jobs. The fewer the jobs, the lower the unemployment rate. I noticed today that the financial media presstitutes were a bit hesitant to hype the drop in the rate of unemployment when there was no jobs growth to account for it. The Wall Street and bank economists did their best to disbelieve the jobs report as did some of the bought-and-paid-for academic economists. Too many interests have a stake in the non-existent recovery declared 4.5 years ago to be able to admit that it is not really there.

I have been examining the monthly jobs reports for a decade or longer. I must say that I am struck by the December report. Normally, a mainstay of jobs gain is the category “education and health services,” with “ambulatory health care services” adding thousands of jobs. In December the net contribution of “education and health services” was zero, with “ambulatory health care services” losing 4,100 jobs and health care losing 6,000 jobs. If memory serves, this is a first. Perhaps it reflects adverse impacts of the ripoff known as Obamacare, possibly the worst piece of domestic legislation passed in decades. I was also struck by the report that the gain in employment of waitresses and bartenders, normally a large percentage of the job gain, was down to 9,400 jobs, which were offset by declines elsewhere, such as the layoff of local school teachers. Aren’t Washington’s priorities wonderful? $1,000 billion per year in Quantitative Easing, essentially subsidies for 6 banks “too big to fail,” and nothing for school teachers. It should warm every Republican’s heart.

A tiny bright spot in the payroll jobs report is 9,000 new manufacturing jobs. The US manufacturing workforce has declined so dramatically since jobs offshoring became the policy of American corporations that 9,000 jobs hardly register on the scale. Fabricated metal products, which I think is roofing metal, accounted for 56% of the manufacturing jobs. Roofing metal is not an export. Employment in the production of manufactured products that could be exported, such as “computer and electronic equipment,” and “electronic instruments” declined by 2,400 and 3,500 respectively. Clearly, this is not a payroll jobs report that provides cover for the looting of the prospects of ordinary Americans by the financial and offshoring elites. One can wonder how the BLS civil servants who produced it can avoid retribution. It will be interesting to see what occurs in the January payroll jobs report.



Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

[xchrom]

48. Stuck: Why Americans Stopped Moving to the Richest States

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/stuck-why-americans-stopped-moving-to-the-richest-states/282969/

***SNIP

Well ... plus ca change. Today, the aversion to high rental costs is perhaps the most important driver of national migration. According to Atlas Van Lines' annual survey of household moves, many dense, high-income states are bleeding people, while many poorer states with plentiful land continue to add families. Here is 2013's map, with ORANGE states losing more people and BLUE states gaining...




Americans aren't simply moving to the states with the lowest unemployment (Oregon, Tennessee, and North Carolina all have jobless rates above the national average). More importantly, we aren't moving to states with the best records for low-income families getting ahead. In fact, we're often fleeing the best places for a upwardly mobile middle class.

According to Harvard’s Equality of Opportunity Project, the states with the most upwardly mobile cities include Pennsylvania (with five of the top 12 cities), New York and New Jersey (Albany, Newark, and New York are in the top 30). All three states are seeing net emigration, according to the Atlas map. Five of the 11 worst cities for poor children to move into the top quintile are in Tennessee and North Carolina—two of the few states to see more inbound moves in 2013.

This doesn't make much sense if you envision American families rushing to the most promising metros. It does make sense if you see American families rushing to the most affordable homes.

[Demeter]

50. ELIZABETH WARREN: My new bill to stop the back-room deals

IT'S WONKY, BUT THE LADY IS ASKING FOR HELP...

Almost a year ago, during my first banking committee hearing, I asked several federal regulators a simple question: When was the last time you took a Wall Street bank all the way to a trial for breaking the law?

The regulators were stumped. After some hemming and hawing, they said they didn't need to take the biggest banks to trial for breaking the law because settlement agreements were tough enough to enforce the law.

I was a little skeptical.

But here's the deal -- if the regulatory agencies are so confident that settlements are a good deal for the taxpayers they represent, then you would think they would be willing to publicly disclose the key terms and conditions of those agreements -- hang it right out there so everyone can see what a great job they did on behalf of the American people. But too many times, that isn't what they do.

Instead of making all the terms public, they announce a big "sticker price" for the settlement, then hide the details in fine print or fail to disclose that the company will get a big tax deduction or -- worst of all -- declare all the terms of the deal "confidential."

Senator Tom Coburn and I have introduced the bipartisan Truth in Settlements Act to require accessible, detailed disclosures about these agreements so the public can hold regulators accountable for these deals.

Sign up now to show your support for the Truth in Settlements Act:

https://donate.elizabethwarren.com/page/signup/settlementsact?source=20140109em1

These hidden details can make all the difference. When you dig below the surface, settlements that seem tough and fair can end up looking like sweetheart deals.

Last year, federal regulators cut a deal with thirteen mortgage servicers accused of illegal foreclosure activities. The sticker price was $8.5 billion -- which is a great headline. But a loophole in the way that credits are calculated could end up cutting that value by more than half.

Wells Fargo settled a case involving the sale of fraudulent mortgage securities for a fraction of what JP Morgan had to pay in a similar case -- but since the Wells Fargo agreement is confidential, we have no idea why they got such a better deal.

And the list goes on.

Our bill takes several steps to fix these problems:

It requires federal agencies to explain in written public statements that reference a settlement amount whether any portion of that "sticker price" is potentially tax-deductible or includes the cost of "credits."

It requires federal agencies to post basic information about settlements over $1 million on their websites.

It requires companies that settle with enforcement agencies to state in their SEC filings whether they have claimed a tax deduction for settlement payments.

It requires federal agencies to explain their reasoning publicly any time they deem a settlement confidential.

And it requires federal agencies to report annual aggregate statistics on confidential settlements.

Increased transparency will help ensure that Congress, citizens and watchdog groups – people like you and me -- can hold regulatory agencies accountable for strong and effective enforcement.

The job of the regulators is to make certain that no one is above the law no matter how powerful or well-connected they are. The Truth in Settlements Act is one way to keep their feet to the fire to see that promise through.

Government agencies work for us, not for the companies they regulate. That means agencies should not be able to cut bad deals and then hide the embarrassing details. The public deserves to know what's going on.

Thank you for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

[xchrom]

51. How to Solve America's Democracy and Poverty Crisis

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/how-to-solve-americas-democracy-and-poverty-crisis/282983/


President Lyndon Johnson declares the War on Poverty during the 1964 State of the Union address. (Associated Press)

Fifty years ago this week, President Lyndon Johnson promised to "strike at the causes, not just the consequence" of persistent poverty in America. His War on Poverty, he told a joint session of Congress, would do more than alleviate immediate economic needs; it would "strike away the barriers to full participation in our society."

Americans may have tired of Johnson’s war, but the struggle is far from complete. Not only does poverty persist across the United States today, but American democracy itself has become impoverished. The two are more entwined than is commonly thought.

As the foregoing articles in this series have shown, tens of millions of citizens, and would-be citizens, are struggling to earn their keep and keep their faith in a democratic system from which they are excluded. Millions more low-income citizens have a hard time making it to the polls for reasons that are partly within and partly beyond their control. Making matters worse, the politicians on whom they rely do not rely on them: a tiny fraction of wealthy Americans and special interest groups lobby the federal government, and a fraction of one percent of citizens provide the lion’s share of campaign funds.

However you slice and dice the numbers, people in poverty are at a serious, structural disadvantage when it comes to making their voices heard and having their interests represented in Washington. They are far from equal citizens in the public square.

[Demeter]

53. White House designates five regions as targets of new poverty initiative

SOMEHOW, THE USE OF THE WORD "TARGET" IS THE CODE FOR DISASTER...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/08/white-house-poverty-promise-zone-los-angeles-philadelphia?CMP=ema_565



San Antonio, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, south-eastern Kentucky, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma will be the first targets of President Barack Obama's plan to combat high poverty in American communities, the White House said on Wednesday. The president will announce the five areas as the first in a series of so-called "Promise Zones" that combine various other efforts under the administration to address struggling neighborhoods, the White House said in a statement.

Obama has pledged to make income inequality in America a top priority. The selection comes on the 50th anniversary of the unofficial war on poverty launched under President Lyndon Johnson. A formal announcement is planned for 2pm ET on Thursday.

The Promise Zone initiative, put forth in Obama's 2013 state of the union speech, aims to partner local businesses with the community "to create jobs, increase economic security, expand access to educational opportunities and quality, affordable housing and improve public safety", the statement said.

The zones will combine several other revitalization efforts such as the Obama administration's Promise Neighborhoods and Choice Neighborhoods that fund local programs aimed at education, housing and other areas.

YEAH, SURE

[Demeter]

66. Cheap Labor Obama’s Corporate Plantations By Mike Whitney

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37341.htm

The man who promised to restore hope and bring change to America, has announced a plan to open five corporate plantations in the United States. On Thursday, President Barack Obama, whose policies have resulted in the greatest number of public sector job losses in US History (Public sector jobs have declined by 718,000 jobs since Obama took office.) announced the opening of five “Promise Zones” located in San Antonio, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, southeastern Kentucky, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. According to an article in USA Today:

“Under the proposed Promise Zones, the federal government plans to partner with local governments and businesses to provide tax incentives and grants to help combat poverty.” (“Obama to name 5 ‘Promise Zones’ for assistance“, USA Today)

Combatting poverty’ has nothing to do with it. Obama plans to shower the nation’s biggest corporations–which recorded record profits in the last year and are presently sitting on more than $1.3 trillion in cash–with more lavish subsidies and tax breaks while providing an endless source of cheap slave labor to boost future earnings. The president believes that the wealth generated in these profit zones, er, promise zones will trickle down to the area’s residents, even though–as the Christian Science Monitor notes–”it can be hard to tell whether a program’s benefits reach the poorest people, rather than flowing largely into the hands of the business owners who get the tax credits.”

Here’s more from USA Today:

“Obama said his administration plans “to partner with 20 of the hardest-hit towns in America to get these communities back on their feet. We’ll work with local leaders to target resources at public safety, and education, and housing.” (USA Today)

Translation: The Obama administration is committed to assisting the corporate oligarchy whenever possible even if it means further eviscerating the rapidly-diminishing US middle class and reducing millions of hard-working Americans to grinding third world poverty. Deregulation will allow corporations to privatize policing, education and any other lucrative public resource or service. According to the New York Times: “White House officials said the Promise Zones initiative would not provide new money, rather it would be aimed at providing the local governments and agencies “aid in cutting through red tape to get access to existing resources.”

No new money?? How do you like that? So, the man that helped push through the multi-trillion dollar Wall Street bailouts is not going to give one red cent to the nation’s poorest and most needy people. Instead, he is going to do whatever he can to eliminate the rules that keep voracious corporations from feeding at the public trough. Conservative Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky — “praised the proposed Promise Zone for Eastern Kentucky saying:

“I wrote a letter last year supporting this designation because this region has suffered enormous economic hardship over the last several years,” McConnell said in a statement.”

Mitch McConnell likes Obama’s plan. That says it all, doesn’t it? Plantations were a familiar feature of the antebellum South, but were abandoned following the Civil War. Now a new generation of corporate kleptocrats want to revive the tradition. They think that weakening consumer demand and persistent stagnation can only be overcome by skirting vital labor protections and shifting more of the cost of production onto workers. Obama’s promise zones provide a way for big business to slip the chains of “onerous” regulations and restore, what many CEO’s believe to be, the Natural Order, that is, a Darwinian, dog-eat-dog world where only the strongest and most cunning survive. This is a world in which Obama has done quite well, although he’s had to distance himself from his political base and throw friends under the bus (Jeremiah Wright) in his relentless climb to the top. Even so, selling out has never been an issue for Obama. Special economic zones are not a new idea, in fact, they’ve been tried in the UK, Australia and other places where the global bank cartel exerts its grip. In Tokyo, last month, right-wing PM, Shinzo Abe announced the launching of his own “Special Economic Zones”. Here’s a short summary of Abe’s plan from an article in the Japan Times:

“Special zones aimed at spurring corporate investment through deregulation and tax incentives are to be created in Tokyo as well as Osaka and central Aichi Prefecture….Other deregulation steps to debut in such zones will let private firms operate public schools, let experts without teaching licenses teach classes, expand the scope of treatment that can be administered by non-Japanese doctors and nurses, facilitate the use of foreign drugs and increase the number of hospital beds.” (Japan Times)

Sound familiar? Deregulation, privatization, and cheap labor; the toxic cocktail that has vaporized the US middle class and wiped out a good portion of the developing world. Obama calls these promise zones. We think corporate plantations is a more fitting moniker.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [e-mail].

[Demeter]

54. Flu Report

http://classic.wunderground.com/US/Region/US/2xFlu.html

[xchrom]

57. Japan and China criticise each other's Africa policies

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25680684


China and Japan are criticising each other's policies in Africa as each country pledges more money for the continent.

Japan has suggested China is buying off African leaders with lavish gifts.

Meanwhile China accuses Japan of courting African support for a place on the United National Security Council.

Japan's leader Shinzo Abe is touring three nations in Africa, the first trip there by a Japanese prime minister for eight years.

[DemReadingDU]

59. JPMorgan Chase Is Worse Than Enron

1/11/14 JPMorgan Chase Is Worse Than Enron By Richard Eskow

It's beginning to look as if JPMorgan Chase has had a hand in every major banking scandal of the last decade. In fact, it's the Zelig of Wall Street crime. Take a snapshot of any major bank fraud and chances are you’ll see JPMorgan Chase staring out at you from the frame.

Foreclosure fraud, investor fraud, cheating customers, market manipulation, LIBOR … and now, the coup de grâce to JPM’s tattered reputation: a $2 billion fine for closing its eyes and covering up as Bernie Madoff literally bilked widows and orphans, along with a lot of other families and charities. (Here's a list of investors.)

Does Jamie Dimon, the bank’s CEO, still think people don’t say enough nice things about him? Do his friends?

More importantly, how does the largest bank in the country (measured in assets) get away with being worse than Enron? That one’s easy: By being the largest bank in the country.

more...
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21155-now-we-know-jpmorgan-chase-is-worse-than-enron

[Demeter]

62. Is America Ready for a New War on Poverty?

IF NOT US, THEN WHO? IF NOT NOW, THEN WHEN?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/war-on-poverty_b_4559644.html

Fifty years ago today (January 8) President Lyndon B. Johnson used his 1964 State of the Union address to declare an "unconditional war on poverty." What led LBJ to make such a bold move? The Cold War, the civil rights movement, and a taste for ambitious goals were all part of the mix. Another factor was a small book by Michael Harrington entitled The Other America.

Written in 1962, the book challenged the conventional wisdom that the nation had become an overwhelmingly middle-class society as a result of postwar prosperity. Harrington reported that almost one-third of all Americans -- between 40 million and 50 million people -- lived "below those standards which we have been taught to regard as the decent minimums for food, housing, clothing and health." Harrington's writing style -- informal, accessible, and morally outraged but not self-righteous -- appealed to readers. Rather than relying primarily on statistics to make his argument, he told stories, humanizing the poor as real people trapped in difficult conditions not of their own making. He described people living in slum housing, people who got sick and lived with chronic pain because they could not afford to see a doctor, who did not have enough food for themselves or their children and lived with constant hunger. In this slim 186-page volume, Harrington wrote that the poor were invisible to most Americans because they lived in rural isolation or in urban slums. Once they become aware of the situation, Americans should be ashamed to live in a rich society with so many poor people.

"The fate of the poor," he concluded, "hangs upon the decision of the better-off. If this anger and shame are not forthcoming, someone can write a book about the other America a generation from now and it will be the same or worse."

It is now a generation later and, thanks in part to Harrington, the poor are no longer invisible. The policies adopted as part of LBJ's War on Poverty (including Medicaid, Medicare, subsidized housing, Head Start, legal services, nutrition assistance, raising the minimum wage, and, later, food stamps and Pell grants) -- in combination with a strong economy -- significantly reduced poverty. The nation's poverty rate was cut in half, from 22.2 percent in 1960 to an all time low of 11.1 percent by 1973. Most dramatic was the decline of poverty among the elderly, from 35.2 percent in 1959 to 14.6 percent in 1974, thanks to enactment of Medicare in 1965 and cost-of-living increases for Social Security. The poverty rate among African Americans fell from 55.1 percent in 1959 (when most blacks still lived in the rural South) to 41.8 percent in 1966 (when blacks were an increasingly urban group) to 30.3 percent by 1974.

The nation's poverty rate has never returned to the level Harrington described in The Other America. But progress was stalled in the 1970s. Today, almost 50 million Americans -- over 15 percent of the population -- live below the nation's official poverty threshold. Almost as many poor people live in the suburbs as in cities -- a phenomenon that was unthinkable 50 years ago. About one-quarter (22 percent) of America's children now live in poverty. The poverty rate is much higher for Blacks (27 percent) and Latinos (26 percent) than for whites (10 percent). A significant proportion of America's poverty population are the working poor, who earn poverty-level wages. Even more startling is the fact that 100 million people comprise what the U.S. Census calls the poor and the "near poor," based on a new definition of poverty that measures living standards, not just income. Almost one-third of the nation, in other words, can barely make ends meet. Although America's poverty rate has fluctuated over the years, it has persistently been two or three times higher than poverty rates in most European societies, which have much more generous social welfare policies and stronger labor unions. Even Canada -- which has a similar economy and distribution of wealth as the United States -- has a much lower poverty rate and does not permit the level of sheer destitution and misery found in the United States, including hunger, slums, and the growing army of homeless people sleeping on park benches and in vacant buildings.

CONCISE EXTENSIVE HISTORY LESSON DOCUMENTS OUR RECENT PAST AT LINK

Peter Dreier is the E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics and chair of the Urban & Environmental Policy Department at Occidental College. His latest book is The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame (Naion Books)

[Demeter]

64. Ireland's Rebound Is European Blarney

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/opinion/irelands-rebound-is-european-blarney.html

I was talking just before Christmas to a young man who sells shoes in a department store in Dublin. He told me that a television news crew had filmed interviews in the store the previous day. They wanted to know if sales were picking up during the vital holiday period, indicating that the battered Irish economy was, after five grim years, on the rise at last.

Most of his colleagues said that, actually, sales were rather sluggish. One was more hopeful and said that there were signs of improvement. When the young man watched the TV news that night, he was not entirely surprised to find that the only interview that had made the cut was the one with the optimist.

Everyone wants Ireland to be a good-news story, proof that a willingness to take the pain of prolonged austerity will be rewarded in the end. Ordinary citizens are hungry for some hope. The government, in the words of Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore, was “determined that Ireland would be Europe’s success story.” An influential board member of the European Central Bank, Jörg Asmussen, says, “The Irish program is a success story.” Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany praised Ireland as an example of how crisis countries could turn themselves around.

The only problem is that, for most of us who actually live here, Ireland’s success story feels less like “The Shawshank Redemption” and more like “Rocky.” We haven’t been joyously liberated; we’ve just withstood a lot of blows. We’re still standing, but we’ve taken so many punches that it’s hard to see straight.

MORE TRUTH

[Demeter]

65. Paul Krugman: In Economics, Old Is New Again

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21080-in-economics-old-is-new-again

Mike Konczal at The Washington Post recently made a very good point about how we teach economics. He suggests that we should return to the way the economist Paul Samuelson did it in 1948, when he wrote the first version of his famous textbook - macroeconomics first, then micro. This, Mr. Konczal explains, would give students a better perspective on reality, even though all the same material would eventually be covered.

I would add that the motives behind Mr. Samuelson's ordering apply just as well today as they did then. He was writing when the memory of the Great Depression was still fresh; students wanted to know how such things could happen. How did he get them to take that stuff about the perfection of markets seriously after all that had just happened? By first teaching them that monetary and fiscal policy could be used to ensure full employment.

Six years into the Great Recession and the not-so-great recovery, all this seems new again. But there are some serious problems with Mr. Konczal's solution - some of what Mr. Samuelson did in 1948 can't be replicated now. What Mr. Samuelson brought to economics was actually a double dose of innovation - Keynesian macroeconomics plus a new orientation toward mathematical models. At the time these went hand in hand, and were mutually reinforcing: the apparent success of Keynesian macro, which was model-oriented, vanquished the institutionalists.

Today, the economists most deeply committed to viewing the world through a haze of equations also tend to be deeply hostile to any kind of macroeconomics that can make sense of the recent crisis. Also, back then Keynes was new and innovative. Today, you have generations of economists brought up in the belief that Keynesian macro is wrong - they don't know what's in it, actually, but that's what they were taught....

MORE

[jtuck004]

68. The business press failed to report on the behavior of the thieving, lying bankster that brought

us the financial crisis we are living today, the one this administration and Congress is supporting with their actions (such as the failure to investigate and prosecute these largest of donors, banks, to the Parties, or the latest gift, profits banksters can rake from the $1.4 trillion/yr being given in QE, all while their signatures are affixed to legislation which gives permanent tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and temporary, now defunct, unemployment benefits and cuts in food assistance to those who are most in need or simply hungry). It might have been far different had the investigative journalists done the job we trust them to do as watchdogs, instead of being the simpering lapdogs and cheerleaders that they are.

I draw that opinion from the conclusions of a new book by the Columbia Journalism Review. An excerpt of the book has been published on their site.

The book: "The Watchdog That Didn’t Bark: The Financial Crisis and the Disappearance of Investigative Journalism"

...
The US business press failed to investigate and hold accountable Wall Street banks and major mortgage lenders in the years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008. That’s why the crisis came as such a shock to the public and to the press itself. And that’s the news about the news.
...
Was the brewing crisis really such a secret? Was it all so complex as to be beyond the capacity of conventional journalism and, through it, the public, to understand? Was it all so hidden? In fact, the answer to all those questions is “no.” The problem—distorted incentives corrupting the financial industry—was plain, but not to Wall Street executives, traders, rating agencies, analysts, quants, or other financial insiders. It was plain to the outsiders: state regulators, plaintiffs’ lawyers, community groups, defrauded mortgage borrowers, and, mostly, to former employees of financial institutions, the whistleblowers, who were, in fact, blowing the whistle. A few reporters actually talked to them, understood the metastasizing problem, and wrote about it. Unfortunately, they didn’t work for the mainstream business press.
...
How could The Wall Street Journal publish stories like the brilliant “Best Interests: How Big Lenders Sell a Pricier Refinancing to Poor Homeowners . . .” around the same time, on its prestigious front page, then nothing of the sort later, when the situation got much, much worse? Meanwhile, still in 2003, a reporter named Michael Hudson was writing this:

A seven-month investigation by Southern Exposure has uncovered a pattern of predatory practices within Citi’s subprime units. Southern Exposure interviewed more than 150 people—borrowers, attorneys, activists, current and ex- employees—and reviewed thousands of pages of loan contracts, lawsuits, testimony, and company reports. The people and the documents provide strong evidence that Citi’s subprime operations are reaping billions in ill-gotten gains by targeting the consumers who can least afford it.

Who is Michael Hudson? And what on earth is Southern Exposure? For that matter, why was an urban affairs reporter for an alternative weekly in Pittsburgh, with no financial reporting experience, able to write this (emphasis added):

By its very nature, the mortgage-backed securities market encourages lenders to make as many loans at as high an interest rate as possible. That may seem a prescription for frenzied and irresponsible lending. But federal regulation, strict guidelines by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, intense and straightforward competition between banks, and the relative sophistication of bank borrowers have kept things from getting out hand, according to the HUD/Treasury reporter. Those brakes don’t apply as well in the subprime lending market, where regulation is looser, marketing more freewheeling and customers less savvy.

...

Excerpt here.

After reading this book, one might think that watching "Big Bang Theory" would get them about as much useful information about the markets. Certainly more honest, because that show is at least labeled as fiction. The only way the infomercial known as CNBC could be as honest is if they changed their call letters to LIAR.

Looks like an interesting read, but maybe it is more than just history. We have moved into the rental era, here, and here,in which large amounts of real estate will no longer be owned by families, but by a single company, Blackstone, and rented to them for what the market will bear. So much real estate that they have now developed a "rental-backed equity", with high and low interest tranches, the same type that led us into the financial crisis of the these years.

The beginning of a defense against what may yet prove to be another way steal from this country, and all of us, is knowledge.

And we will never adequately address poverty as long as we allow thieves in suits to operate with impunity.

[Demeter]

73. I think the Rent-a-Home business will blow up in their faces

because the market cannot bear it. Unless it all goes Section 8, which ISN'T what Blackstone has in mind, I'm pretty sure.

[jtuck004]

87. It will blow up in the investors faces. The industry is secure. If it works out, they profit from

the vig on the transactions. If it goes in the crapper, the investors lose, the Blackstone and the Wall Street Gang still get the vig on the transactions.

And because of their infectious nature, we will never be rid of them unless we burn everything associated with them and inoculate everyone outside. Just like any disease.

[xchrom]

69. ENTREPRENEUR: BOOST CALIF. WAGES TO $12-AN-HOUR

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MILLIONAIRE_MINIMUM_WAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-01-12-04-01-18


FILE - In this Aug. 27, 1997 file photo, Ron Unz, poses inside the Las Families Del Pueblo child care center in Los Angeles. Unz, a Silicon Valley multimillionaire and registered Republican who once ran for governor and, briefly, U.S. Senate, wants state voters to endorse the wage jump that he predicts would nourish the economy and lift low-paid workers from dependency on food stamps and other assistance bankrolled by taxpayers. Two decades ago, Unz tried to unseat then-Gov. Pete Wilson, a fellow Republican. After a long break on the political sidelines, Unz’s reappearance has startled members of both major parties, and his proposal, if it goes to voters in November, could unsettle races from governor to Congress. (AP Photo/Kevork Djansezian)

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Democrats across the nation are eager to make increasing the minimum wage a defining campaign issue in 2014, but in California a proposal to boost the pay rate to $12 an hour is coming from a different point on the political compass.

Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley multimillionaire and registered Republican who once ran for governor and, briefly, U.S. Senate, wants state voters to endorse the wage jump that he predicts would nourish the economy and lift low-paid workers from dependency on food stamps and other assistance bankrolled by taxpayers.

A push for bigger paychecks for workers at the lower rungs of the economic ladder is typically associated with Democrats - President Barack Obama is supporting a bill in Congress that would elevate the $7.25 federal minimum to over $10 an hour.

But entrepreneur Unz, 52, is a former publisher of The American Conservative magazine with a history of against-the-grain political activism that includes pushing a 1998 ballot proposal that dismantled California's bilingual education system, an idea he later championed in Colorado and other states.

[xchrom]

70. The 3 Weirdest Things About the Weirdest Jobs Report Ever

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-3-weirdest-things-about-the-weirdest-jobs-report-ever/282977/

***SNIP

(1) Where are the jobs? A steady year ended with a whimper. We added 180,000 jobs per month in 2013, and most economists suspected that growth would accelerate into 2014. Instead, December came in 60 percent below our recent average and even further below analyst expectations.



(2) What happened to health care? Employment in the health-care sector declined by 6,000 in December. Why is that strange?

One ironclad law of the economy is that, rain or shine, boom or bust, health care jobs just keep growing. Here's the graph of health care employment since 1990 (as far back as FRED data goes). It's straight as a ruler. In the last 300 months, you know how many times the health-care sector hasn't added jobs? Zero. Not once. Until now.



(3) Seriously, what's happening to the participation rate? The most important story of this jobs report—and, perhaps, of the entire labor market—is why so few people are actually working or looking for work. In 2013, the population grew by 2.4 million people, and the labor force declined by 500,000. That's just weird.

But there has to be a reason, and it starts with Father Time. As a general rule, older people are less likely to work. So when a country like the U.S. gets older, it's natural for a declining share of its population to "participate."

[xchrom]

71. Does the U.S. Economy Need Bubbles to Live?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/does-the-us-economy-need-bubbles-to-live/282867/


Larry Summers can't spot any catchup growth that doesn't come from a bubble (Reuters)

Larry Summers thinks the economy is broken, and has been for awhile.

It's not just the Great Recession and the not-so-great recovery. It's the 8 years before that too. As Summers points out, even low interest rates, deficit-financed tax cuts, and nonexistent lending standards weren't enough to overheat the economy then. Sure, housing prices boomed, but nothing else did. Inflation was low, and unemployment wasn't that low. In other words, demand wasn't excessive, but it wasn't sustainable either.

Summers worries that this isn't only a story about our economic past, but about our future, too. That we won't be able to create enough jobs without bubbles, now and forever. It's a new old idea called "secular stagnation." Economist Alvin Hansen first proposed it in the late 1930s when it looked like slow population growth might slow investment, and create a permaslump. But, thankfully, the baby boom, and 16 years of pent-up consumer demand proved him wrong.

Goodnight, Sweet Sustainable Growth?

This time, though, might be different. See, there's something called the "natural rate of interest," which is the inflation-adjusted one that gets the economy to its Goldilocks state of low inflation and low unemployment. If the Fed sets rates above it, inflation should fall and unemployment should rise (though, in practice, wages and prices don't tend to fall below zero).

As Summers points out, this natural rate has been negative for most of the last decade. And that's why we've alternated between bust and boom. The Fed's 2 percent inflation target means that even if it sets rates at zero, it might not be able to generate negative enough real rates to hit the natural one. That's the bust. But these kind of persistently low rates might eventually encourage risky behavior that, well, bubbles over. That's the boom. And our economic trap.

[Demeter]

74. And guess who broke the economy?

That's right, Larry Summers! Give that man an exploding cigar!

[xchrom]

75. !

as usual -- we keep asking the people who broke it -- what's wrong and how do we fix it?

[Demeter]

76. It's a sunny morning

and I survived the ice-covered, unplowed route. This is the last winter I do this.

[xchrom]

78. it's sunny but cool here too.

we had a bad wind storm yesterday -- tornado warnings all over.

my heat was out during the polar vortex -- couldn't get the heater fixed til it was over.
unbelievably cold.

$500 for the privilege of freezing.

[Demeter]

79. My daughter had the same problem

On the coldest night of the year, the fail-safe switch failed, and it went down to 57F in her home. Fortunately, the home warranty is still in effect. I'm thinking of getting another year on it...this is the third service call on the heating/cooling since she moved in.

The grandpuppy and his two pet cats were handy portable heat sources that night...

[xchrom]

80. my house got down into the 30s.

thang Gawd for the dogs -- they made the difference during the 2 nights the temps dropped so severely.

sorry about your daughter -- i think those service agreements are good things -- you just never know.

[Demeter]

81. She also had one of those electric fireplace / space heaters!

A literal house-warming present from her mother.

[xchrom]

82. you are so good! nt

[Demeter]

84. Aw, shucks!

[Fuddnik]

85. I survived (so far) my first week-end as a cab driver.

Heavy rain at times, punctuated by deluges so bad you can't see the road, much less an address. Thank Dog for Garmin.

I rescued a black kid, who missed his bus, and called a cab, and just wanted a ride a little closer to home to a sheltered buss stop, because he didn't have enough money for a cab to get him home. So, I told him gimme 10 bucks (he had 25), I'll shut off the meter there, and get you home. Boy was he happy.

Now, it's back out to hustle some bible thumpers.

See y'all later.

[DemReadingDU]

86. Very kind of you!

and glad that turned out so well. Take care, cab drivers can also be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Tell us more stories when you have time.

P.S. I posted earlier in the week that we got our renewal for flood insurance. Not as bad as I expected, but the bill still doubled. aaargh

[xchrom]

72. There Are Much Bigger Problems In Turkey That Could Derail Its Alliance With America

http://www.businessinsider.com/turkey-scandal-involving-erdogan-2014-1

***SNIP

Based on his experience tracking issues manifesting in Turkey in recent years, Schanzer detailed the six "massive red flags" of the larger scandal:

1) Last year Turkey was almost blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international terror finance regulatory body, for being out of compliance with its status obligations.

"It was remarkable not because they were out of compliance, but because they were out of compliance for seven years," Schanzer, who is now the vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told BI. "They didn't do anything and they waited until the 11th hour to make changes."

The only countries currently blacklisted by the FATF are Iran and North Korea.

2) "Turkey appears to be a top sponsor of Hamas right now," Schanzer said, referring to the U.S.-designated terrorist group that governs the Gaza Strip. He cited material support flowing from Turkey to Hamas for the construction of schools and mosques as well as unconfirmed reports of $300 million in annual aid.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/turkey-scandal-involving-erdogan-2014-1#ixzz2qC9N87jZ

[xchrom]

77. A New Fed Study Destroys One Of The Central Tenets Of Monetary Policy

http://www.businessinsider.com/business-investment-sensitivity-to-interest-rates-2014-1


Business investment (red line) has yet to accelerate, even though the Fed's main policy tool, the fed funds rate (blue line) has been pinned at zero since the recession.

New research by Federal Reserve staff economists Steve Sharpe and Gustavo Suarez suggests that the outlook for business investment — a notably lacking aspect of this economic recovery — has little to do with changes in interest rates.

"A fundamental tenet of investment theory and the traditional view of monetary policy transmission is that a rise in interest rates has a sizable negative effect on capital expenditures by businesses," write Sharpe and Suarez in a paper titled The Insensitivity of Investment to Interest Rates: Evidence from a Survey of CFOs.

"Yet, a large body of empirical research offer mixed evidence, at best, for a substantial interest-rate effect on investment."

In the paper, the economists examine data from the quarterly Duke University/CFO Magazine Global Business Outlook survey conducted in September 2012, which asked chief financial officers across companies of various sizes questions related to their spending plans.

The main findings:

The vast majority of CFOs indicate that their investment plans are quite insensitive to potential decreases in their borrowing costs. Only 8% of firms would increase investment if borrowing costs declined 100 basis points, and an additional 8% would respond to a decrease of 100 to 200 basis points.

Strikingly, 68% did not expect any decline in interest rates would induce more investment.

In addition, we find that firms expect to be somewhat more sensitive to an increase in interest rates. Still, only 16% of firms would reduce investment in response to a 100 basis point increase, and another 15% would respond to an increase of 100 to 200 basis points.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/business-investment-sensitivity-to-interest-rates-2014-1#ixzz2qCHCg7Ph

[Demeter]

83. Why invest, when you can suck the blood out of the consumer as it is?

There's no competition, so just bleed them dry.