The headline news from the September jobs report is that the national unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent on a seasonally-adjusted basis, the lowest that it's been since January 2009.
Unlike some previous months in which unemployment fell because of people leaving the labor force, this month's figure was the result of a huge increase in the number of people who reported that they were working. The figure was also accompanied by a strong increase in the number of people in the labor force. Another unambiguous sign of labor market improvement is the the percentage of people who are working is the highest that it has been in two years.
Estimates from the employer survey indicate that 114,000 non-farm jobs were added on a seasonally-adjusted basis last month. Taken by itself, that would be a so-so figure, but the report also revised employment growth from July and August upwards by an additional 86,000 jobs. The Department of Labor also reported last week that the year's employment figures will likely by revised upward by another 300,000 to 400,000 jobs beyond that.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Yes, out-of-work millionaires should collect unemployment benefits
Bloomberg reports on a Congressional Research Service (CRS) study about millionaires who collected unemployment insurance (UI) benefits in 2009.
$20 million in savings sounds great, but that wouldn't be the bottom impact on the federal budget. In order to recoup that money, the federal or state governments would have to check income sources of UI recipients. That checking would cost money--quite possibly more money than goes out in UI benefits.
The CRS believes that the least costly approach would be to collect the payments through the income tax system. A 100 percent tax could be placed on UI benefits for households with incomes above one million dollars. Although cost-effective, this approach is far from costless. Tax forms would become more complicated making them harder to complete and harder to check.
Any other system to prevent millionaires from getting benefits is likely to be far more costly and less effective. The state agencies that administer the UI system only have access to some income information. Besides having to conduct additional checks against the available information, the agencies would have to make guesses about whether a household's total income worked out to one million dollars. The checks would be especially difficult for married couple households and for households that receive unearned income. Any such system would also likely impose additional reporting burdens on the broader set of unemployed households.
In the end, a policy of trying to keep benefits from going to a handful of millionaire households is likely to cost the treasury more than it saves. If the goal really is to reduce the burden on future generations, we should keep sending out those checks.
Almost 2,400 people who received unemployment insurance in 2009 lived in households with annual incomes of $1 million or more, according to the Congressional Research Service.The Bloomberg article and CRS report note that approximately $20 million could be saved in federal contributions to UI over the next decade if benefits to millionaires were blocked from receiving UI benefits.
The report was released after about 1.1 million people exhausted their jobless benefits during the second quarter of 2012, when more than 4.6 million filed initial unemployment claims. Eliminating those payments to high earners is one idea being considered as U.S. lawmakers struggle to curb a projected $1.1 trillion deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, with the nationwide jobless rate at 8.1 percent.
“Sending millionaires unemployment checks is a case study in out-of-control spending,” U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, said in an e-mail. “Providing welfare to the wealthy undermines the program for those who need it most while burdening future generations with senseless debt.”
$20 million in savings sounds great, but that wouldn't be the bottom impact on the federal budget. In order to recoup that money, the federal or state governments would have to check income sources of UI recipients. That checking would cost money--quite possibly more money than goes out in UI benefits.
The CRS believes that the least costly approach would be to collect the payments through the income tax system. A 100 percent tax could be placed on UI benefits for households with incomes above one million dollars. Although cost-effective, this approach is far from costless. Tax forms would become more complicated making them harder to complete and harder to check.
Any other system to prevent millionaires from getting benefits is likely to be far more costly and less effective. The state agencies that administer the UI system only have access to some income information. Besides having to conduct additional checks against the available information, the agencies would have to make guesses about whether a household's total income worked out to one million dollars. The checks would be especially difficult for married couple households and for households that receive unearned income. Any such system would also likely impose additional reporting burdens on the broader set of unemployed households.
In the end, a policy of trying to keep benefits from going to a handful of millionaire households is likely to cost the treasury more than it saves. If the goal really is to reduce the burden on future generations, we should keep sending out those checks.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
BLS adds 386,000 jobs to the economy
The economy may be doing better than we initially thought.
This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its preliminary revision of the March 2012 jobs tally. The BLS expects that when the revised estimates are released next year, the figures will show that the U.S. had 386,000 more jobs in March 2012 than were initially reported.
Revisions to the jobs figures are necessary because the initial estimates are based on a survey with some sampling noise and with an imperfect sampling frame. Some months after the initial estimates are made, the BLS is able to compare and benchmark them to nearly complete data gathered from payroll tax records. Estimates throughout the year are then readjusted to this benchmark.
When the economy was declining in 2008 and 2009, the BLS initially under-estimated the job losses by 902,000 positions, and we didn't find out how truly awful the employment situation was until a year or so after the actual decline. When the Obama administration famously forecast that its stimulus package would hold unemployment to 8 percent, no one realized that the U.S. was actually nearly a million jobs further in the hole. Everyone knew things were bad--we just didn't know that things were that bad.
Now that the economy is improving, the BLS appears to have under-estimated job gains by roughly a third of a million.
Why does the BLS keep missing the mark? Part of the reason has to do with the entry and exit of businesses during economic swings. Each month the BLS chooses businesses to survey to get its employment numbers. The sampled businesses are selected from a roster of businesses that provided payroll tax records in a recent quarter. Businesses that were created since the last set of payroll tax records were processed aren't on that roster and can't be part of the frame. Similarly, the BLS misses some of the businesses that stopped operating. The BLS makes statistical adjustments for these issues, but these adjustments are based on historical trends, not the sort of huge swings that we saw during the recession and are now seeing during the recovery. The recent pattern has been for the BLS initially to undercount losses during declines and to undercount gains during upswings.
The revision for 2009 was unusually large--a change of 0.7 percent in the employment figures. The current revision, which works out to 0.3 percent, is right at the edge of the historical 0.1 to 0.3 percent average.
In February when the final numbers are released, we will probably discover that the net number of jobs in the U.S. increased over the course of President Obama's first term. For time being, however, the official estimates indicate that there are fewer jobs in the U.S. than there were in January 2009.
This morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its preliminary revision of the March 2012 jobs tally. The BLS expects that when the revised estimates are released next year, the figures will show that the U.S. had 386,000 more jobs in March 2012 than were initially reported.
Revisions to the jobs figures are necessary because the initial estimates are based on a survey with some sampling noise and with an imperfect sampling frame. Some months after the initial estimates are made, the BLS is able to compare and benchmark them to nearly complete data gathered from payroll tax records. Estimates throughout the year are then readjusted to this benchmark.
When the economy was declining in 2008 and 2009, the BLS initially under-estimated the job losses by 902,000 positions, and we didn't find out how truly awful the employment situation was until a year or so after the actual decline. When the Obama administration famously forecast that its stimulus package would hold unemployment to 8 percent, no one realized that the U.S. was actually nearly a million jobs further in the hole. Everyone knew things were bad--we just didn't know that things were that bad.
Now that the economy is improving, the BLS appears to have under-estimated job gains by roughly a third of a million.
Why does the BLS keep missing the mark? Part of the reason has to do with the entry and exit of businesses during economic swings. Each month the BLS chooses businesses to survey to get its employment numbers. The sampled businesses are selected from a roster of businesses that provided payroll tax records in a recent quarter. Businesses that were created since the last set of payroll tax records were processed aren't on that roster and can't be part of the frame. Similarly, the BLS misses some of the businesses that stopped operating. The BLS makes statistical adjustments for these issues, but these adjustments are based on historical trends, not the sort of huge swings that we saw during the recession and are now seeing during the recovery. The recent pattern has been for the BLS initially to undercount losses during declines and to undercount gains during upswings.
The revision for 2009 was unusually large--a change of 0.7 percent in the employment figures. The current revision, which works out to 0.3 percent, is right at the edge of the historical 0.1 to 0.3 percent average.
In February when the final numbers are released, we will probably discover that the net number of jobs in the U.S. increased over the course of President Obama's first term. For time being, however, the official estimates indicate that there are fewer jobs in the U.S. than there were in January 2009.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Carrying wood pellets to Newcastle?
Well, Selby actually.
Bloomberg reports on an astounding and historic energy development--the U.K.'s largest coal-fired power plant (and largest carbon producers) will shortly be refitted to burn biomass and theoretically be carbon neutral.
The change is astounding and historic because of its location in Northern England, not far from the rich coal fields that fed the U.K.'s (and initially the world's) industrial revolution.
If "King Coal" is threatened by renewable energy projects near its original throne, it's threatened everywhere.
Coal's loss may be the environment's gain. The refitted biomass units will emit significantly less carbon than the existing coal units. Also, the biomass is renewable. Biomass releases carbon when it is burned but takes an equivalent amount of carbon in as it is regrown.
However, the potential benefits come with a giant asterisk, involving a huge and uncertain now versus later proposition. The carbon is released almost instantaneously and takes years to recapture. Also, the units will require an enormous amount of biomass--about 7.5 million tons or 3 million acres of trees each year, according to the article.
Some of the biomass can be supplied through waste materials from other lumbering operations, but much more would still be required.
These requirements might mean an valuable jobs and export opportunity for commercial foresters in North Carolina and throughout North America.
Bloomberg reports on an astounding and historic energy development--the U.K.'s largest coal-fired power plant (and largest carbon producers) will shortly be refitted to burn biomass and theoretically be carbon neutral.
The change is astounding and historic because of its location in Northern England, not far from the rich coal fields that fed the U.K.'s (and initially the world's) industrial revolution.
If "King Coal" is threatened by renewable energy projects near its original throne, it's threatened everywhere.
Coal's loss may be the environment's gain. The refitted biomass units will emit significantly less carbon than the existing coal units. Also, the biomass is renewable. Biomass releases carbon when it is burned but takes an equivalent amount of carbon in as it is regrown.
However, the potential benefits come with a giant asterisk, involving a huge and uncertain now versus later proposition. The carbon is released almost instantaneously and takes years to recapture. Also, the units will require an enormous amount of biomass--about 7.5 million tons or 3 million acres of trees each year, according to the article.
Some of the biomass can be supplied through waste materials from other lumbering operations, but much more would still be required.
These requirements might mean an valuable jobs and export opportunity for commercial foresters in North Carolina and throughout North America.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Class warfare -- Romney style
What does former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney really think of Americans?
Mother Jones has some damning video of him speaking to supporters when he thought he was unrecorded. The worst of it is a nasty piece ofclass crass warfare.
We should all take some satisfaction in Gov. Romney shedding his soulless, robot image. Too bad, though, that he's adopted a soulless jerk persona instead.
Mother Jones has some damning video of him speaking to supporters when he thought he was unrecorded. The worst of it is a nasty piece of
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.When he's through belittling the incompetents who support the President, he turns his fire on the half-witted independents that he needs to win over.
We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed that his policies haven't worked?" they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's "over his head." But if we're—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn't been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What're they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, "Yeah, I think you're right."Finally, Gov. Romney offers another way that he could appeal to voters. With respect to his father's background, he says, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this."
We should all take some satisfaction in Gov. Romney shedding his soulless, robot image. Too bad, though, that he's adopted a soulless jerk persona instead.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Weak jobs report
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this morning that the U.S. added a piddling 96,000 non-farm payroll jobs on a seasonally-adjusted basis in August. The seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate slipped down from 8.3 to 8.1 percent, but the decline was entirely an artifact of U.S. adults leaving the labor force. Compounding the disappointment, job growth numbers from June and July were also revised downwards. Average hourly and weekly earnings for those who were employed also fell.
A line from the second page of the report tells you most of what you need to know. "Since the beginning of this year, employment growth has averaged 139,000 per month, compared with an average monthly gain of
153,000 in 2011." The U.S. needs to add about 150,000 jobs per month to keep up with the growth of the adult population.
Last year we were treading water; this year we are slowly sinking.
A line from the second page of the report tells you most of what you need to know. "Since the beginning of this year, employment growth has averaged 139,000 per month, compared with an average monthly gain of
153,000 in 2011." The U.S. needs to add about 150,000 jobs per month to keep up with the growth of the adult population.
Last year we were treading water; this year we are slowly sinking.
Reprehensible comments by DNC delegate
Earlier this week, Julia Rodriquez, a DNC delegate from New York, told a reporter at the Democratic convention in Charlotte that if she saw Gov. Mitt Romney, "she would like to kill him."
Her reprehensible comments have (appropriately) drawn the attention of the Secret Service.
The comments were beyond the pale and have no place in the country's political discourse. It's not clear what steps the DNC can take to censure Ms. Rodriquez, but she has no place in the Democratic party.
Her reprehensible comments have (appropriately) drawn the attention of the Secret Service.
The comments were beyond the pale and have no place in the country's political discourse. It's not clear what steps the DNC can take to censure Ms. Rodriquez, but she has no place in the Democratic party.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Are you as well off as 4 years ago? The S&P 500 thinks so
U.S. stock markets opened much higher this morning. Bloomberg reports
It would be nice to be reporting lots of additional positive economic news, but today's stock market post sure beats the one from nearly four years ago.
The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) climbed above the highest closing level since 2008 as the European Central Bank announced specifics of its bond-buying plan and data boosted optimism in the labor market.You would think that this would carry some weight with the "pro-business" Republican party.
It would be nice to be reporting lots of additional positive economic news, but today's stock market post sure beats the one from nearly four years ago.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Smart growth and the police state
The Washington Post has a fascinating article this morning about how development planning advice from police experts can lead to safer neighborhoods and attractions.
No mention though of Agenda 21 or blue helmets.
The concept of police working with developers is not unique to Washington, but experts say Lanier’s department is ahead of many of its peers. While some offer a stock list of design recommendations, D.C. police make specific suggestions about safety measures as blueprints are being drawn, well before the first buckets of concrete are poured.Hmm, planning to increase safety and reduce the need for expensive security measures later. Sounds like smart growth.
No mention though of Agenda 21 or blue helmets.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Thurston and Lovey are at it again
ABC News has two stories today that show how insensitive Gov. and Mrs. Romney (Thurston and Lovey) are to people's concerns.
The day started with the Romney campaign off-shoring a party for top donors by holding it on a foreign-registered yacht.
Among her other condescending remarks, Mrs. Romney praised the Puerto Rican Governor and First Lady, saying what they "are doing on that little island is quite remarkable" and "I had the most rocking time in Puerto Rico at a political rally than I’ve ever had in my entire life...You people really know how to party."
Sticking with the diminutives, she also offered that her trip to Puerto Rico let her "peak into a culture and a vibrancy and energy, a passion that I saw from that little island that really what represents the best in America."
The day started with the Romney campaign off-shoring a party for top donors by holding it on a foreign-registered yacht.
Gov. Mitt Romney's campaign toasted its top donors Wednesday aboard a 150-foot yacht flying the flag of the Cayman Islands.Later, keenly identifying the big obstacle to Hispanic economic and social progress, Mrs. Romney told Hispanics that they need to "get past some of their biases." Really.
The floating party, hosted by a Florida developer on his yacht "Cracker Bay," was one of a dozen exclusive events meant to nurture those who have raised more than $1 million for Romney's bid.
"I think it's ironic they do this aboard a yacht that doesn't even pay its taxes," said a woman who lives aboard a much smaller boat moored at the St. Petersburg Municipal Marina.
Among her other condescending remarks, Mrs. Romney praised the Puerto Rican Governor and First Lady, saying what they "are doing on that little island is quite remarkable" and "I had the most rocking time in Puerto Rico at a political rally than I’ve ever had in my entire life...You people really know how to party."
Sticking with the diminutives, she also offered that her trip to Puerto Rico let her "peak into a culture and a vibrancy and energy, a passion that I saw from that little island that really what represents the best in America."
Friday, August 24, 2012
Outrage over Gov. Romney's birther joke
The Obama campaign is beside itself with indignation that Gov. Romney dared to make a joke today about birth certificates, harrumphing
As it turns out, the joke was captured on video, so everyone can see how mean-spirited and divisive it was.
Oops, I meant this mean-spirited and divisive joke.
Harrumph!
...Governor Romney’s decision to directly enlist himself in the birther movement should give pause to any rational voter across America.Pause, indeed. Gov. Romney's comments are beyond the pale. The President's U.S. nationality has been firmly established, and jokes about the President's origins have no place--no place whatsoever--in our political discourse.
As it turns out, the joke was captured on video, so everyone can see how mean-spirited and divisive it was.
Oops, I meant this mean-spirited and divisive joke.
Harrumph!
Thursday, August 23, 2012
4-year-old struck by bullet in Raleigh
The News-Observer reports on another innocent victim of gun violence.
A 4-year-old child was hit by a bullet fired outside his house in East Raleigh last night, according to police.The NRA and other gun apologists are sure to appear shortly to explain how this wouldn't have happened if the 4-year-old had been "packing."
The boy was shot on Melvid Court, off Peyton Street near Poe Elementary School, around 11:30 p.m., police said. The bullet was intended to hit someone else, police said, and no arrests have been made.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Republicans' phony, bogus, and artificial outrage
The list of Republicans pompously bellowing for Missouri Rep. Todd Akin to withdraw from his state's U.S. senate race keeps growing and growing, with NC Senator Richard Burr joining the list.
You can tell that these Republicans are really, really serious because they don't just use one adjective to condemn Rep. Akins remarks, but three!
Sen. Brown: "I found Todd Akin’s comments about women and rape outrageous, inappropriate, and wrong."
Gov. Romney: "Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong."
Sen. Cornyn: "Congressman Akin's statements were wrong, offensive, and indefensible."
Sen. Burr: "Congressman Akin’s comments about rape were outrageous, offensive, and, simply put, wrong."
In the weird math of Republican politics, three adjectives appear to equal one category-5 shit-storm.
The Republicans seem to be saying that Rep. Akin, by his remarks, is unfit, unsuited, and ill-equipped for public office (hey, I can read a thesaurus too).
However, if they are actually concerned with Rep. Akin's fitness to serve, why aren't any of them calling on him to immediately resign his House seat?
BTW, double bonus points for phony outrage go to Sen. Claire McCaskill for her complaint that national Republicans were trying to "dictate" to Missouri's primary voters.
You can tell that these Republicans are really, really serious because they don't just use one adjective to condemn Rep. Akins remarks, but three!
Sen. Brown: "I found Todd Akin’s comments about women and rape outrageous, inappropriate, and wrong."
Gov. Romney: "Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong."
Sen. Cornyn: "Congressman Akin's statements were wrong, offensive, and indefensible."
Sen. Burr: "Congressman Akin’s comments about rape were outrageous, offensive, and, simply put, wrong."
In the weird math of Republican politics, three adjectives appear to equal one category-5 shit-storm.
The Republicans seem to be saying that Rep. Akin, by his remarks, is unfit, unsuited, and ill-equipped for public office (hey, I can read a thesaurus too).
However, if they are actually concerned with Rep. Akin's fitness to serve, why aren't any of them calling on him to immediately resign his House seat?
BTW, double bonus points for phony outrage go to Sen. Claire McCaskill for her complaint that national Republicans were trying to "dictate" to Missouri's primary voters.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Another disarming gun story
Another story to file in the "guns make us safer" drawer. The News-Observer reports
A gun dealer shot himself in the hand just before a gun show in northern Charlotte Sunday morning.I'm sure the unnamed gun dealer is just as competent in running background checks and completing ATF paperwork.
Police haven’t released the name of the man, but said he was a dealer at the Dixie Gun & Knife Classic, which was held this weekend at the Metrolina Expo on Statesville Road.
“He was taking the gun out to display it and pulled the trigger and it went off,” said Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Capt. William Boger.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Did Rep. Ryan use inside information to dump bank stocks? The answer is no
Matthew Yglesias cites the Richmonder blog's accusation about Rep. Ryan's inside trading during the early days of the financial crisis.
From the Richmonder
The Business Insider investigates further. Although the transactions are reported to have occurred on the same day as the Paulson/Bernanke meeting, they may have happened just prior to the meeting.The Business Insider was also not able to obtain confirmation of who attended the meeting.
Given the miraculous timing of the transactions, it seems the Rep. Ryan has some 'splaining to do.
Update (5:16): Yglesias has walked back his story, saying the Richmonder doesn't "have the goods" to make its case. He cites Brad DeLong's analysis of all of Rep. Ryan's trades in 2008 which include numerous other instances of trading bank stocks.
Also, Rep. Ryan's office has offered an explanation that indicates that the timing was a coincidence.
From the Richmonder
Ryan attended a closed meeting with congressional leaders, Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on September 18, 2008. The purpose of the meeting was to disclose the coming economic meltdown and beg Congress to pass legislation to help collapsing banks.As Yglesias writes, "it's about as clear an example of a public official trying to use his office to obtain personal benefits as you're likely to find."
Instead of doing anything to help, Ryan left the meeting and on that very same day Paul Ryan sold shares of stock he owned in several troubled banks and reinvested the proceeds in Goldman Sachs, a bank that the meeting had disclosed was not in trouble.
The Business Insider investigates further. Although the transactions are reported to have occurred on the same day as the Paulson/Bernanke meeting, they may have happened just prior to the meeting.The Business Insider was also not able to obtain confirmation of who attended the meeting.
Given the miraculous timing of the transactions, it seems the Rep. Ryan has some 'splaining to do.
Update (5:16): Yglesias has walked back his story, saying the Richmonder doesn't "have the goods" to make its case. He cites Brad DeLong's analysis of all of Rep. Ryan's trades in 2008 which include numerous other instances of trading bank stocks.
Also, Rep. Ryan's office has offered an explanation that indicates that the timing was a coincidence.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Y'all skidaddle or I'll shoot my roommate again
In a novel home protection strategy, a local man shot his roommate to ward off burglars.
The News and Record reports
The News and Record reports
Alamance Regional Medical Center treated a 19-year-old man shot during a burglary early Saturday, police said.The story is a grim reminder of the dangers of firearms--and of firing into your roommate's arm.
James Jenkins of North St. John Street told Burlington police officers that he had been shot during a burglary at his home.
One of two men also in the home at the time of the burglary said he gained control of a firearm and shot at the suspects. According to his report, the rounds inadvertently struck Jenkins. The suspects then fled.
Gov. Romney believes others' tax returns are relevant but not his
Former Mass. governor Mitt Romney thought that "several years" of income tax returns were necessary for him to properly vet his vice presidential candidates but says that one year (and another to follow at some undetermined date) are enough for the public to vet him.
The Caucus reports
The Caucus reports
A top aide to Mitt Romney said that the campaign had obtained “several years” of income tax returns from potential running mates – suggesting that Representative Paul D. Ryan had produced tax returns for a greater number of years than Mr. Romney has in his run for the White House.If hypocrisy were an Olympic event, Gov. Romney would get the gold.
Mitt Romney has repeatedly refused to disclose tax returns for any years but 2010 and 2011, stirring criticism that he is shielding his finances from public view.
But on Saturday, the Romney adviser who oversaw the vice-presidential search, Beth Myers, said that she had requested “several years” of returns from Mr. Ryan. When pressed on precisely how many she had received, she declined to elaborate.
In Paul Ryan, a token of Romney's extreme
Kudos to former Mass. governor Mitt Romney on his bold,
inspired choice of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate. Rep.
Ryan brings a host of qualities to “Team Romney” that are sure to appeal to
voters.
Some of that appeal will come from selecting a leader in the
majority party of the least popular Congress, well, ever. This would be the same
Republican House "leadership" that has staged 33 go-nowhere votes to rescind the
health-care law that is almost a mirror image of Gov. Romney’s own health plan.
It would also be the same Congress that trashed the country’s credit rating by nearly
causing a debt default and that has left scores of necessary bills pending
because of its dysfunction.
Voters will also appreciate Rep. Ryan’s fondness for Ayn
Rand and his frequent criticism of the “takers” in society. Rep. Ryan, who benefited
from government assistance as a youth, attended a publicly-funded university
for his schooling, has drawn almost every penny of his salary as an adult from
government coffers and refuses to eliminate oil company subsidies that benefit his family, is a paragon of Rand’s principles. As an added plus, voters, especially “values
voters,” will especially like Rand’s atheism and open adultery.
Rep. Ryan also brings scads of credibility to Gov. Romney’s
claims to be a deficit hawk. What with his proposal to increase defense
spending AND cut tax rates for the wealthy and with his earlier votes to create
the massively expensive Medicare drug plan, to enact the Bush tax cuts, and to
support two incredibly costly wars. Rep. Ryan is so concerned about the deficit
that his plan would close it by the middle of the century—talk about a
futurist.
Oh, and speaking of that tax proposal, which would
lower Gov. Romney’s already meager tax payments from 13.9% to 0.8% of his income,
will help to take the focus off Gov. Romney’s tax shenanigans. It's not quite the zero tax rate that Gov. Romney described in criticizing the plan when Newt Gingrich espoused it in the primaries, but it's awfully close.
Rep. Ryan’s proposal to convert Medicare into a voucher
program and then slowly shift the medical cost burden from the government to
the elderly is also sure to be a hit. Evidence of the proposal’s popularity can
be seen the assurances that Rep. Ryan has to give that no one under 55 will be
affected by it. As they say, the best things are worth waiting for.
Friday, August 10, 2012
“You f---ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we‟re not going to deal with Iranians.”
“You f---ing Americans. Who are you to tell us, the rest of the world, that we‟re not going to deal with Iranians.” -- Standard Chartered Bank's Group Executive Director in response to an internal warning about the bank's scheme for hiding transactions on behalf of Iranian clients.
On August 6, New York state's banking superintendent, Benjamin Lawsky, filed an order that could strip Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) of its license to conduct business in New York. The order contained explosive allegations that SCB systematically covered up 60,000 Iranian transactions worth upwards of $250 billion by falsifying business records and financial instruments and by cooking its books.
According to the order, the transactions in question occurred from 2001-2010, but the general scheme to cover up Iranian transactions was initiated immediately after the transactions were prohibited in 1995.
The alleged corruption is staggering. Through these transactions, SCB enabled the Iranian regime and may have helped it to "finance terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad." Further, by covering up the transactions, SCB kept bank regulators in the dark about its actual risks. It appears that SCB has concealed transactions for other regimes as well.
More staggering still, SCB's procedures have been under investigation for some time by the New York Fed, the Justice Department, and the Manhatten District Attorney. If Lawsky hadn't acted, it's likely that the case would have been quietly settled, as a string of other illegal transactions cases have--if there had been any action at all.
For his trouble, Lawsky appears to have drawn the ire of other banking regulators, especially in the U.K., for not following the club rules and for making the charges public.
Those regulators seem over-concerned with protecting rogue banks instead of having those banks follow the law.
Thank goodness an actual regulator appears to be on the job.
On August 6, New York state's banking superintendent, Benjamin Lawsky, filed an order that could strip Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) of its license to conduct business in New York. The order contained explosive allegations that SCB systematically covered up 60,000 Iranian transactions worth upwards of $250 billion by falsifying business records and financial instruments and by cooking its books.
According to the order, the transactions in question occurred from 2001-2010, but the general scheme to cover up Iranian transactions was initiated immediately after the transactions were prohibited in 1995.
The alleged corruption is staggering. Through these transactions, SCB enabled the Iranian regime and may have helped it to "finance terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad." Further, by covering up the transactions, SCB kept bank regulators in the dark about its actual risks. It appears that SCB has concealed transactions for other regimes as well.
More staggering still, SCB's procedures have been under investigation for some time by the New York Fed, the Justice Department, and the Manhatten District Attorney. If Lawsky hadn't acted, it's likely that the case would have been quietly settled, as a string of other illegal transactions cases have--if there had been any action at all.
For his trouble, Lawsky appears to have drawn the ire of other banking regulators, especially in the U.K., for not following the club rules and for making the charges public.
Those regulators seem over-concerned with protecting rogue banks instead of having those banks follow the law.
Thank goodness an actual regulator appears to be on the job.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Mitt Romney: Tax Cheat
Arrived back from France to find this CNN report on Mr. Romney's anything-to-make-a-profit approach to business.
In his key role as chairman of the Marriott board's audit committee, Romney approved the firm's reporting of fictional tax losses exceeding $70 million generated by its Son of Boss transaction. His endorsement of this stratagem provides insight into Romney's professional ethics and attitude toward tax compliance obligations.
Like other prepackaged corporate tax shelters of that era, Marriott's Son of Boss transaction was an entirely artificial transaction, bearing no relationship to its business. Its sole purpose was to create a gigantic tax loss out of thin air without any economic risk, cost or loss -- other than the fee Marriott paid the promoter.
The Son of Boss transaction was vulnerable to attack on at least two grounds.
First, the transaction's promoters and consumers relied on a strained technical statutory analysis. Second, the Son of Boss deal violated the fundamental tax principle that the tax law ignores transactions unless they have a motivating business purpose and a substantial nontax economic effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)