Thursday, February 23, 2012

Who Benefits from the Federal 'Safety Net?' Better Question, Who Doesn't?!


Read this excellent article from the New York Times, and have your eyes opened.  I know I did:


Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.
Multimedia
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.
Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.


Who really benefits from the federal government 'safety net?'

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Kicking the Little Guy While He is Down

According to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune on January 15, 2012, Congress did  it again, and did it without getting the front page headlines this story deserves, and that's just as big a shame.
 
Washington Post Reporter Kenneth Harney's article has the headline "Congress Is Making Owning Home More Expensive."  First, let me say that I am a very strong believer that home ownership is a very good thing, for individuals, for families, and for society.  Pride of ownership is much stronger than for renters.  Pride of ownership produces stronger ties to the community.  It means a property is better maintained, and so improves the entire neighborhood.

Mr. Harney's article begins, "Though its demise drew little attention because of the partisan year-end brawl over the payroll tax cut extension in Congress, a key mortgage financing benefit disappeared at the end of December: The ability of large numbers of homebuyers and owners to write off the premiums they pay for mortgage insurance.

The loss of that tax deduction — plus mandatory new fees imposed by Congress on all new conventional and FHA loans — could ratchet up the costs of homeownership this year."

His article continues:  "The expiration of mortgage insurance deductibility will hit... virtually all new mortgages closed this year where the down payment is less than 20 percent. Though industry experts do not have precise numbers, their estimates range into the millions of existing owners and new purchasers potentially touched by the deductibility termination. Borrowers using guaranteed veterans and rural housing loans, where down payments can drop to zero, also are affected.

David Stevens, who served as FHA commissioner and is now chief executive of the Mortgage Bankers Association, says the loss of deductibility of mortgage insurance “hits a segment (of consumers) — middle-income and first-time buyers— where affordability is especially important.”

At a time when the Federal Reserve is warning that there can be no broad economic improvement until housing recovers, it may strike you as odd public policy to raise costs for homebuyers and refinancers in order to fund unrelated, temporary tax relief. But that’s not the way they saw it on Capitol Hill in the rush to holiday recess."

What makes me crazy is that the mortgage deduction laws definitely do need fixing, but this is the wrong fix.  A law that promotes home ownership should not include any deductions for a second home!  A law that promotes home ownership should not include recreational vehicles!  A law designed to promote home ownership should not allow interest deductions on homes valued at up to $1,000,000!  And yet, current law allows all of those deductions.  To me, these are all no-brainer facts.  While I don't have hard figures, some research strongly supports my contention that changing the law to reflect these three simple facts would save billions and billions of dollars, and all without harming the premise of the law one cent!  

You can't convince me that this Congress doesn't know what they are doing, that my premise escapes them.  Only logical conclusion:  they don't care!  


Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Great Recession Recovery Not Getting Usual Gov't Help

Below is an interesting article on how the government is not doing what it normally does in a recession recovery.  I am not educated enough to know exactly what it means, but it sure doesn't look positive.  The crushing federal debt has to be a major factor in why the government isn't adding jobs to help the recovery along.  Being always interested in numbers, and being unemployed going on 11 months, the longest by far in my career, the thought of another two years of recovery is disturbing.  Being north of 55 years of age doesn't help either.

 Usually a job engine, localities slow US economy

By PAUL WISEMAN, AP Economics Writer  3:26 a.m., June 6, 2011

— In a healthy economic recovery, states and localities start hiring, expand services and help fuel the nation's growth. Then there's the 2011 recovery.
The U.S. economy is moving ahead, however fitfully. Yet state and local governments are still stuck in recession. Short of cash, they cut 30,000 jobs in May, the seventh straight month they've shed workers. Rather than add to U.S. economic growth, they're subtracting from it.
And ordinary Americans are feeling it - from reduced services to fewer teachers, police officers and firefighters.
The Great Recession officially ended two years ago this month. By the same point during previous recoveries, state and local governments were engines of growth: In the two years after the 1990-91 recession ended, for example, they'd added 430,000 jobs. At the same point after the 2001 recession ended, they had added 249,000.
This time is different. More than 467,000 state and local government jobs have vanished since the recession officially ended in June 2009, including 188,000 in schools.
Few see the pain subsiding soon. Mark Vitner, senior economist at Wells Fargo Securities, expects state and local governments to slash 20,000 to 30,000 jobs a month through the middle of 2012.
Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors notes that when states cut spending to balance their budgets, as required annually, a ripple effect multiplies the damage: Companies that do business with states and localities suffer. These companies, in turn, scale back their own hiring.
"There's a whole slew of private companies that have to cut back when they don't get the (government) contracts they had been getting," Naroff said. "You can't balance a budget and say everything's going to be beautiful."
Moody's Analytics estimates that each job in state and local government supports an additional 1.3 jobs elsewhere in the economy.......

The Great Recession of 2007-2009, the longest and deepest downturn since the 1930s, dried up state and local tax revenue. It also escalated demands for social programs like Medicaid and unemployment benefits and "ate through their rainy-day funds," notes Michael Gapen, senior U.S. economist at Barclays Capital.
For a while, federal stimulus spending cushioned the blow to state and local finances. But that money is running out. And it probably won't be replenished. The federal government is preparing to cut its own spending to shrink huge budget deficits.......

But 29 states say they'll still spend less in the 2012 fiscal year than in 2008. And local governments are still waiting for a recovery in tax revenue. They rely heavily on property tax revenue, which continues to sink with the collapse in home prices in many areas.
"The state revenues are coming back, but the local revenues probably haven't seen the worst of it," says Christopher Hoene, director of research at the National League of Cities. "We still have another year to go for sure."

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Honesty and Ethics Ratings of Professions, 2008-2010

Here is an interesting chart from the Gallup Poll showing the public's perception of honesty and ethics by profession, and changes over three recent years.  It's worth nothing that Members of Congress are near the bottom, with car salespeople, both with very low ratings, even less than advertising practitioners, and in fact about half off what the people think of lawyers!  How can we have so very little trust in the people we elect?


Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Top economist Ken Rogoff warns of dangers in US debt fight

In this Q and A session, top economist Ken Rogoff tells it like it is.  My primary reason for posting this article is what he says about taxes, that they will have to rise, no way around it, but that the present income tax system must be overhauled, a flat tax instituted, with a high deductible for low income earners, and the scrapping of the "smoke and mirrors" that high wage earners use presently to avoid paying taxes. 
 
Top economist warns of dangers in US debt fight
NEW YORK CITY (AP) — Kenneth Rogoff never intended to be a political actor. But since the financial crisis hit, politicians and pundits have evoked the Harvard economist's research when warning about the perils of borrowing too much.
Expect to hear his name even more between now and August 2. That's the deadline the Treasury Dept. has given Congress for raising the federal government's debt ceiling without risking a default.
Rogoff's research with fellow economist Carmen Reinhart found that recovering from a financial crisis often takes longer than anyone expects. Deep debts weigh on economic growth, making countries vulnerable to another blow. "It's like being a little more run down," he says. "It's easier to get sick."
Rogoff and Reinhart also revealed that when a country's debt surpasses 90 percent of its economy, the economy often turns sluggish. The U.S. is now at 96 percent.
These findings, written in the pair's 2009 best-seller, "This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly," have taken on a life of their own in political circles. When you hear Republican leaders like Rep. Paul Ryan say the U.S. needs to slash spending, they often quote Rogoff's work.
For his part, Rogoff doesn't believe the country's debt trouble can be solved quickly or through deep spending cuts. "You just can't do this overnight," he says. "If we tighten too fast, we would slam growth."
Rogoff, 58, served as the International Monetary Fund's chief economist for two years and as an adviser to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign. In graduate school at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Rogoff befriended Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the Federal Reserve.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Rogoff talked about the debt ceiling, mistakes made in the Fed's $600 billion stimulus effort and his obsession with chess. Here are edited excerpts:
Q: The U.S. hit the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling today, and now the Treasury is moving cash around to stave off default till August. What's that mean for markets?
A: I don't think it means anything immediately, but it doesn't seem like any way to run the government. I think they should raise the debt ceiling unconditionally, despite the fact that some reforms are desperately needed. When you're the world's biggest debtor there are repercussions when you take it to the brink and scare people (with the idea) that you just might consider a default.
Q: You're not in favor of the artificial cap, or debt ceiling, because it threatens creditors. But debt is still your biggest worry about the economy, yes?
A: The greatest concern at the moment is the huge debt overhang. All U.S. government debt, including state and local, is higher than at the end of World War II. But equally significantly, private debt (like mortgages and credit cards) is almost at its all-time high. If you combine the two, there's never been anything like it.
Q: What's the risk in the U.S. having so much debt? Other countries, like Japan, have larger debt burdens.
A: It doesn't automatically cause a crisis, but it certainly weighs on the recovery. Very roughly speaking, when a country has public debt over 90 percent of income, growth is about 1 percent lower for a very long time.
Q: A government can't increase spending as easily if it has too much debt, which you say makes a country vulnerable. How so?
A: That's the fundamental problem. You see it when a country loses tax revenues and needs to borrow money. They have wars and natural catastrophes and need to spend to pay for things, reconstruction, bridges. You don't want to be forced in the middle of a recession to raise tax rates (to pay for those things). That's a disaster.
Q: Politicians use your work to argue for deep spending cuts now to trim our debt. Do you agree?
A: If we tighten too fast, the economy will implode on itself. We didn't get here in two years, and we shouldn't try to get out of it in two years. But at the same time the idea that we can worry about the future later, that's false.
It's not just about cutting spending. The tax take probably needs to go up. We need to clean up the tax system.
Q: Where would you start?
A: I'm one of many economists who favor scrapping the current system entirely in favor of some form of a flat tax, with a very high deductible for low-income earners.
And you know what? The very wealthy would pay more. They pay less under the current system because there are these smoke and mirrors they can hide behind, all these deductions and all these ways of avoiding taxes.
Q: Your friend and former classmate Ben Bernanke has taken flak for the most recent quantitative easing program, known as QE 2. What do you make of the effort to keep prices from falling through pushing $600 billion into the economy?
A: I thought QE 2 was absolutely right when they did it. But the way quantitative easing works best is you announce a goal and then say you will do whatever it takes (to get there). If you don't have a blank check, it doesn't do much. Because of all the pushback from the Chinese, the Germans and Sarah Palin, they couldn't keep going. The Fed needed a free hand, and it doesn't have one.
A second problem was the Fed was not careful enough to tell the market clearly, "This is not going to solve all your problems." The biggest mistake they made was the suggestion that part of the way quantitative easing operates is through the stock market.
There are all these traders on Wall Street who said, "This means the Fed's got our back. The Fed is just determined to drive up the market."
Q: What's wrong with traders thinking that?
A: Well, the Fed doesn't have their back. The Fed cares about stable inflation. So the worry now is when these traders see that QE 2 is coming to an end, will they get really depressed and all their trades will unwind? That's the concern.
Q. At Bernanke's first press conference in April, he joked that playing chess with you was a "big mistake." Most people don't know you're an International Grandmaster. Did Bernanke ever ask for a rematch?
A:  No. I went cold turkey after leaving graduate school. I teach my children how to play (chess) but that's it. I'm completely addicted and need to guard myself from playing. I still think about chess all the time.
Q: Has your expertise in chess helped inform your work?
A: Chess teaches you to think about what the other person is thinking. Obviously, there are other ways besides chess to come to that. Chess is just a disciplined approach. At the IMF, we had crises in Argentina, Brazil, Turkey and Lebanon. And it helped to put myself in their position: "What are they thinking."

Friday, May 6, 2011

A "Crisis" Over Civics Knowledge

Three-quarters of high school seniors tested weren't able to show skills in the subject of civics.  So says a recent study by the US Department of Education, who administers the National Assessment of Education Progress test.

It occurred to me recently that our poor public education system is not rudimentary and inadequate just to raise new, uninformed consumers, but also to supply the military.  I'm going out on a limb hear noting that, the more educated one is, the less likely is going to fall for the military recruitment posters and shpiel.  I'm taking about grunts, the boots on the ground/deck people.  First, the more educated one is, the more options available to you for advancement, so the less attractive a tour is to you.  Second, you are just more likely to fall for their BS.  Public high school is the very beginning of the military-industrial complex at work. 

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

2,400 Wealthy Californians Pay No State Income Tax

Here is a story that will boil your blood.  Apparently it is too much to ask everyone to pull their share of the weight.

2,400 wealthy Californians pay no state income tax

That number has quadrupled over the past decade, report says

Originally published April 14, 2011 at 1:42 a.m., updated April 14, 2011 at 8:39 a.m.
As last-minute tax filers rush to the post office this weekend to mail their income taxes, they may take heart in the fact that the state's corporations are paying a little less in state and local taxes even though individuals are paying a little more.
This year, personal income taxes will represent 51.5 percent of all general fund revenues, compared to 42 percent as recently as 2003, according to estimates by the state Department of Finance.
Last year, California ranked 15th in the nation in terms of the size of its state taxes versus personal income. That's up six notches from the year before, when it ranked 21st.
One reason for that jump is that during the 2008-2009 budget crisis, Sacramento introduced temporary increases in the personal income tax, which expired in December, and sales tax and vehicle license fees, which are slated to expire in June.
But another reason is that individual income taxes are shouldering the burden for a decrease in corporate taxes, partly thanks to tax deals arranged in the budget crisis. Those deals will cost $1.5 billion in the upcoming fiscal year, $1.6 billion next year and $1.8 billion per year from 2013 to 2015.
So who's shouldering the burden for all this?
The study estimates that the lowest-paid 20 percent of Californians now pay 11 percent of their income on state income, property and sales taxes compared to 7.8 percent tax bill among the highest-paid 20 percent.
But in terms of income taxes alone, the biggest bills are going to people making $200,000 or more. Although they represent only 4 percent of the population, they make nearly 40 percent of the state's taxable income and as a result pay 61 percent of its income taxes.
But even though the official top tax rate in California is around 9.5 percent, or 10.5 percent if you make more than $1 million per year, few pay that rate. Statistics from the Franchise Tax Board show:
  • 2,430 upper-income households paid no taxes and another 5,366 paid less than 1 percent in 2008, the most recent year for comprehensive data. Although that amounts to just 1 percent of the total, those numbers have risen sharply over the past decade. In 1997, only 579 people in the upper-income bracket paid zero taxes.
  • Roughly half of the upper-income households paid state income taxes ranging from 3 to 7 percent.
  • Only 4 percent paid above 9 percent.
During the 2008-2009 budget negotiations, tax changes were implemented requiring the poor to pay more in taxes by lowering the threshold for paying taxes and sharply reducing the tax credit for dependent children. In 2008, a family of four did not have to pay income taxes until their income was above $51,335. But in 2010, such a family has to pay taxes once their income hits $36,591.