Archive for the ‘Government & Politics’ Category

Did the Social Security crisis just go away ?

February 4, 2009

A couple of years ago, the hot socio-economic topic was the projected insolvency of Social Security. 

Remember how Al Gore wanted a “lock box” to insulate FICA contributions from Congressional money grabbers?  Or, how Bush wanted to privatize Social Security so folks could earn higher returns?

Now, pundits (e.g. Robert Reich, Larry Lindsay) are calling for payroll tax holidays.

President Obama is bound and determined to give payroll tax rebates to low income folks who don’t pay income taxes.  That is, to reduce their Social Security contributions … by about $135 billion annually.

Does that mean that Social Security has miraculously found strong financial footing?

Hardly.

Social Security is a trust fund (currently over $2 trillion).  Workers make contributions to the trust and draw benefits from it when they retire or become disabled.  In concept, the contributed inflows and trust earnings (i.e. interest) are supposed to cover the benefit outflows. (Think Ponzi and Bernie Madoff … see excerpted article “Social Security: National Ponzi Scheme ” below)

Currently, about $785 billion in Social Security taxes are collected annually  from about 163 million workers and $585 billion in benefit checks are sent out  to 50 million Social Security recipients.

Well, according to the Social Security trustees, because of demographic shifts (i.e. more retirees, fewer workers), outflows will exceed inflows somewhere around 2020 — a little earlier if interest on the trust isn’t counted, a little later if it is.  And, they project that the trust fund will be completely exhausted by around 2040.

With t-bill rates now hovering slightly over zero, earnings on the Social Security trust must be minimal (and less than considered in the projections).

So, if the Feds cut contribution inflows to the trust by over $100 billion annually, won’t Social Security be in a world of hurt — sooner rather than later?

I haven’t heard any of Obama’s smart guys in the room talking about this part of the problem … and it’s a big part !

* * * * *

Excerpted from IBD, “Social Security: National Ponzi Scheme”, Williams, February 02, 2009

Congress collects about $785 billion in Social Security taxes from about 163 million workers to send out $585 billion to 50 million Social Security recipients.

Social Security’s trustees tell us that the surplus goes into a $2.2 trillion trust fund to meet future obligations.

The problem is that whatever the difference between Social Security taxes taken in and benefits paid out, Congress spends it.

What the Treasury Department does is give the Social Security Trust Fund non-marketable “special issue government securities” that are simply bookkeeping entries that are IOUs.

According to Social Security trustee estimates, around 2016 the amount of Social Security benefits paid will exceed taxes collected.

That means one of two things, or both, must happen: Congress will raise taxes and/or slash promised Social Security benefits.

Each year the situation will get worse since the number of retirees is predicted to increase relative to the number in the work force paying taxes.

In 1940, there were 42 workers per retiree, in 1950 there were 16, today there are three and in 20 or 30 years there will be two or fewer workers per retiree.

Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=318470763456742

* * * * * 

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Uh-oh … the perils of becoming president

February 4, 2009

According to the Rasmussen Reports, President Obama’s approval index (the % of people strongly approving of the job he’s doing less the % of people strongly disapproving of the job he’s doing) is down by half since inauguration day — from 30% to 15%.  Hmmmmm.

image

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_approval_index

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

“Page by page, line by line” … oh, just kidding.

February 3, 2009

Ken’s Take:

Candidate Obama promised that waste and special interests would be clinically scrubbed from the entire Federal budget. 

So, I wonder:  why didn’t his crack team scrub the pork-laden, non-stimulating $819 BILLION  “stimulus” package? 

Said differently, why should we expect that they’ll do a better job on the full $10 trillion Federal budget ? 

Dire prediction: For the record, if the stimulus package is passed in its current form — or a similar pork-laden variant — the Dow will go to 5,000.

* * * * *

Excerpted from Boston.com, ” Obama vows line-by-line budget review”, November 25, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama vowed today to get rid of federal programs that no longer make sense and run others in a more frugal way to make Washington work in tough economic times.

Obama said that to make the needed investments to create jobs, “we also have to shed the spending we don’t need.”

“In these challenging times, when we are facing both rising deficits and a sinking economy, budget reform is not an option. It is an imperative,” Obama said.

“We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politicians, lobbyists, or interest groups. We simply cannot afford it. This isn’t about big government or small government. It’s about building a smarter government that focuses on what works. We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way.”

Full source post:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/obama_vows_line.html 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

“No special interests” … unless you count labor unions

February 2, 2009

Ken’s Take: Candidate Obama pledged that he wouldn’t play to special interests if elected.  Yeah, right. 

First in line to get their favors: the labor unions.  No surprise, except for the fast timing. (Source post from left-leaning CBS News is below).

Ken’s Prediction: Laws prohibiting secret ballots for  union elections — the misnomered “Employee Free Choice Act” which allows union thugs to “encourage” employees to sign-up for unions publicly — will be enacted before the end of the summer. 

And, the Southern-based “transplant” auto factories will be among the first targets.  Why?  There are 2 ways to make Detroit’s labor costs competitive: either lower Detroit’s unionized wages and work rules, or force the the high wages and restrictive work rules on the transplants.  I’m betting the Obama administration pursues the latter tact.  Wrong answer !

* * * * 

Excerpted from CBS.com, “Obama  Reverses Bush Orders For Labor Unions”,  Jan. 30, 2009

The Democratic president, not even two weeks into his term, was already trying to address the needs of one of his party’s most reliable constituencies – organized labor.

Labor leaders visited President Obama in  the White House for a second consecutive day Friday. Unions have been lobbying the Obama administration to repeal scores of executive orders they view as hostile to their cause. Officials gave administration officials their top 10 executive orders they wanted to see dismantled quickly.

Pres. Obama signed a series of executive orders Friday that he said should “level the playing field” for labor unions in struggles with management.

“I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem. To me, it’s part of the solution,” he said, to a round of applause. 

“Over the last 100 years the middle class was built on the back of organized labor. Without their weight, heft and their insistence starting in the early 1900s we wouldn’t have the middle class we have now.”

Full article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/30/politics/100days/economy/main4764111.shtml 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Doubts on stimulus plan mount … combo of bad fundamentals and bad marketing

January 28, 2009

Below is a summary of the proposed stimulus plan.

Ken’s Take: (1) No question but that a stimulus is needed to kick the economy back into gear (2) But, a stimulus should stimulate, not be used as a trojan horse to advance a socio-political agenda (3) the Dems made a mistake throwing everything — including the kitchen sink — into the plan — especially controversial stuff like abortion aid and global warming studies and  (4) the Dems make a mistake everyday letting Reid & Pelosi out in public to explain the plan (5) If I were a GOP rep, I’d vote no on the plan — it’s going to pass anyway — conspicuous benefits are unlikely (it’ll be more TARP-talk: “would have been worse without it) — so, let Obama-Reid-Pelosi own it (“we won – we write the laws now”)  — and let them get the credit in the unlikely event that it does work.

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ, ” Doubts on Obama Plan Mount” & “Stimulus Bill Near $900 Billion”, Jan. 27, 2009 

The economic stimulus package proposed by Democratic House leaders totals $825 billion and includes three broad pieces: a $365.6 billion spending measure for such brick-and-mortar projects as highways and bridges; a $180 billion measure to boost jobless benefits and Medicaid, and a $275 billion tax-relief package, which includes a plan to give a $500 payroll tax holiday to all workers (a proposal from Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign).

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $169 billion (~ 20%) of the $825 billion in stimulus will hit the economy before the end of September and that the bulk of it will show up in 2010 and 2011.

CBO also said that government borrowing prompted by enactment of the plan would add another $347 billion, pushing the estimated cost of the stimulus plan to more than $1 trillion, including interest.

* * * * *

The estimates point to one of the challenges of formulating an effective plan. Tax cuts can be implemented quickly, but many economists think they wouldn’t stimulate much new spending because consumers and businesses are so keen on saving. Government spending would generate economic activity more quickly, but it is hard to ramp up right away.

The one thing that is certain to flow from the stimulus is a large increase in the federal debt. Large government budget deficits are showing signs of starting to nudge interest rates on government debt higher, from very low levels.

If that persists, it could eventually damp some of the stimulus-plan’s benefits. Higher government rates raise the cost of borrowing not only for the Treasury, but also for many private-sector borrowers, since corporate bonds and mortgage bonds are often benchmarked to Treasury yields.

Bond markets have been hit by a flood of new supply of Treasury debt in the past few weeks, a factor that some traders say has pushed up rates. The yield on a 10-year note hit 2.519% Tuesday, up from a little over 2.00% at the end of 2008.

* * * * *

It’s projected that deficits in 2009 and 2010 will reach between 10% and 12% of gross domestic product, respectively, roughly double the previous peacetime records set in the Reagan years. It added that federal debt will soar from about 70% of GDP to more than 90% of GDP.

Economists say that the rise in debt will eventually lead to slower economic growth and diminished standards of living in the U.S.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123311521129023245.html?mod=article-outset-box 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

The economics that Barack-O inherited … (and other presidents before him)

January 22, 2009

Nice recap by the WSJ.  Summary data is below. 

For more a clearer image and very cool interactive graphics:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249848926800519.html?mod=testMod#project%3DINHERIT09%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

image

click for bigger image

 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Nine driving forces to watch in 2009

January 5, 2009

The best list I’ve seen so far.  I especially like #4 … and I agree with the logic.

* * * * *

Excerpted from IBD, “Nine Possibilities Heading Into 2009”,  December 31, 2008

1. A Less Safe Homeland ?

Will Obama take the heat from the left of his own party and boldly use his constitutional authority as president to go the extra mile in protecting the country, as  Bush did, or will he dilute the indispensable tools that have helped keep us safe since the 9/11 attacks ? 

We’ll see. Promising to get Osama bin Laden sounds great in a campaign; governing requires more than catchphrases.

2. Stimulus Pushes Deficit To $1 Tril

Late in 2008, talk centered around a deal involving up to $800 billion in new spending, focused mainly on infrastructure and so-called Green Jobs. Tax cuts of $150 billion or more will focus on the middle class. Under Obama, those who no longer pay any taxes will surge from 44 million currently to more than 50 million, as those in the top 5% of incomes shoulder a greater share of the tax burden.

Obama’ s stimulus, along with the nearly $2 trillion in outlays for 2008’s financial and auto bailout, will push the deficit to more than $1 trillion — 7% of GDP, the biggest deficit since 1946.

Republican efforts to cut capital gains taxes — a proven way to strong economic and job growth — will fail.

Businesses may start feeling left out, and the GOP will try to make it a wedge issue in congressional elections of 2010.  

3. China Falls Into Recession

After decades of stunning 10% GDP growth, China’s economy stumbled late in 2008. It will continue to slow in 2009 — and possibly beyond. The main trigger for their slump: Soaring energy prices during early 2008, and a steep decline in U.S. demand for China’s goods.

If China grows by 5% or less over the next year or so, it won’t create enough jobs and will face serious social pressures that could break into open violence.

Despite its rapid growth, China still only ranks No. 81 on the U.N.’s human development index, a gauge that combines health, education and income. Things are far worse for the more than half of China’s 1.3 billion people who live in rural areas.

4. Recovery In The U.S.?

The U.S. economy will pull out of its recession as a massive home inventory overhang is worked off, oil prices stay low, trillions of dollars in stimulus and bailout funds are put to work and Fed interest-rate cuts kick in.

Banks and finance companies will start lending again, and rising demand will push companies to hire.

World demand for oil will fall, as it did in 2008.  And since each 10-cent drop in gas prices is equal to a $12 billion tax cut, the U.S. will get a “silent” tax cut of about $295 billion.

The bear market in stocks — which are one of the economy’s best leading indicators — should be drawing to a close. This bear is now in its 15th month, and most don’t last more than 15 or 16. Nine to 10 is more like it.

5. Energy Fever, Climate Change Cool Off

The cooling trend that began in 1998 will continue as solar activity remains dormant. Last year was the coolest year in a decade.

As the evidence grows, more scientists will join the list of climate “deniers,” as protests arise in Europe and the U.S. over expensive alternate-energy schemes that slow global economic recovery.

But as long as crude remains below $70 a barrel — the make-or-break level for many energy projects and alternative energy — Congress will continue to drag its feet on drilling for more oil and gas in the U.S.

6. Big Labor Fights For Relevance

Organized labor made a big deal about its $400 million in campaign spending to win the election for Democrats in 2008.

But as 2009 rolls in, all that cash is starting to look less like power projection and more like a last-gasp bid to go for broke.

The big problem is that in a weak economy, the union agenda is incompatible with economic growth. Businesses can’t grow and create jobs in an atmosphere where workers are forced into unions and free trade is restricted. Given the choice of a recovering economy or a satisfied union base, Obama is likely to tilt toward saving the economy, if only for the sake of his own political viability.

Unions want to show they still matter after watching their share of the U.S. work force shrink from 31.4% in 1960 to less than 12% today.

Two fronts will emerge: “card-check” — a change to the National Labor Relations Act that would eliminate secret ballots to make organizing new unions easier — and free-trade pacts.  

7. Obama Seeks Health Care Reform

Even health care experts sympathetic to Obama’s goals argue the president-elect understates his plan’s costs. Obama’s plan of near universal coverage means “a $100 billion infusion of new health care spending.”

ObamaCare’s massive new spending will be a tough political sell, especially with taxpayers already footing the bill for bailouts of banks and the auto sector, and millions of Americans losing their jobs.

Obama will insist that a big government health care reform is imperative for economic recovery, imposing the kind of socialized medicine found in France, Britain and Canada, where waiting lists and substandard quality are the norm.

8. India Gets Assertive

India’s citizens have gained a lot from their opening to the world in 1991 and they aren’t about to give it up. But threats remain from the global economic downturn and terror attacks out of Pakistan.

Fiscal stimulus is on the plate, and possibly more defense spending. The government may tighten its alliance with the U.S. to modernize its military.

As a large market, India will forge closer trade ties with markets like the U.S., Japan, and EU.

9. Israel Gets Rid Of Iran’s Nuclear Threat

Will Israel use its altercation with the Iranian-backed Hamas as a stepping stone toward a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities?

The signs are that an Obama Administration, committed to “tough diplomacy,” will be less likely to let Israel take matters into its own hands and strike Tehran.

Lack of U.S. support would make such airstrikes more difficult, and leave Israel even more vulnerable politically on the world stage.

Still, Israel might be tempted to go for broke, taking out Iran’s burgeoning nuclear threat rather than letting Tel Aviv go up in a mushroom cloud.

* * * * * *
Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=283999323921715 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Among the Clinton Library donors … here are some head-scratchers

December 29, 2008

On the recently released list of donors to the Clinton Library, four caught my eye:

McDonald’s … makes sense since he loved Big Macs almost as much as interns

“I Won’t Cheat” Foundation …. no joke — of the many charities doling out money to this political cause, this was among the more ironic

United Way … I’ve always been suspicious of the UW — from high exec comp & perks to the long list of questionable charities … this unadulterated political gift insures  that they won’t ever get another buck from me

Georgetown University … so tuition and donor dollars get diverted to political causes?  That’s disappointing news to me (and probably a lot of others)

* * * * *

Source WSJ, “Clinton’s Donor List Raises Lots of Questions”, Dec. 23, 2008

Want more from the Homa Files?
     Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Detroit’s fight for survival … then and now.

December 22, 2008

Ken’s Take: It has taken awhile for folks to begin to realize that Detroit execs weren’t complete dolts — save for the unfortunate union negotiations in the 1970s that doomed the companies.  Consumers did want mini-vans and SUVs, and fortunately for the Detroiters, minivans and SUVs were profitable enough to cover their labor cost disadvantages.  Now, only to find a way out of the mess …

* * * * *

Excerpted from WSJ, “Auto Bailout Caps Flawed Relationship”, Dec. 22, 2008

The Detroit Three’s post World War II business strategies — which relied on large, powerful cars built by richly paid union workers — were doomed from the day in 1982 when the first Honda Accord rolled off a nonunion assembly line in Ohio.

How Detroit’s auto makers will be able to stabilize financially in the short run is unclear, since it takes years to redo their product lines.

The fastest way to profitability for the Detroit Three, beyond giving haircuts to bondholders and slashing workers wages, would be to take advantage of falling gas prices to sell more of the gas-hungry sport-utility vehicles and large pickup trucks that  Obama and congressional Democrats don’t like.

Washington’s policies, and the way the government exerted regulatory control over the auto makers, often worked against the profound changes the companies needed to make to compete with foreign makers.

Up until this year, Detroit had few reasons not to lean on trucks and SUVs for profits — and government policy all but invited them to do so.

Since the 1980s, Washington’s de facto energy policy has been to keep gasoline prices, and gasoline taxes, low. By contrast, European nations for years have boosted fuel prices to around $6 a gallon through taxes, which pushed consumers toward small cars.

The result: U.S. consumers gravitated toward ever larger and more powerful vehicles because the costs to fuel them were relatively low. In 1987, the average American vehicle got 22 miles to the gallon, weighed 3,221 pounds and accelerated from 0 to 60 miles per hour in 13.1 seconds. By 2007, the average car weighed 4,144 pounds, accelerated to 60 miles per hour in under 10 seconds — and averaged 20 miles per gallon.

Federal tariffs imposed on imported trucks and other quirks in Washington’s fuel-economy regulatory scheme also encouraged U.S. auto executives to push trucks and SUVs.Federal fuel-economy rules allow car makers to average the fuel usage of most of their products. They could sell fuel-efficient small cars and trucks at little or no profit to make up for the high-profit, gas-hungry luxury cars and big SUVs they promoted.

In recent years, GM, Ford and Chrysler made money on trucks — with profits of as much as $8,000 a vehicle — and lost money on cars. Detroit made enough money to cover spiraling health-care and pension costs.

Federal rules caused Detroit “to cede the car market and make all their money in trucks.”

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122990466217625249.html?mod=article-outset-box 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Quick: The batteries that power hybrid electric cars — where are they made?

December 22, 2008

Answer: Mostly Japan.  By Panasonic and Sanyo — soon to be just Panasonic since it announced that it’s buying Sanyo. Some from China.

So, our national strategy to become energy independent requires sourcing the major auto component — a $5,000 battery — from a foreign supplier.

Anybody see a problem with that?

This ironic twist is widely known, seems to stay off most radar screens.  Fortunately, there’s a consortium of U.S. companies — called the National Alliance for Advanced Transportation Battery Cell Manufacture — trying to develop a U.S. based battery manufacturing capability.   The consortium is knocking on the government’s door for some development money.

This is one use of tax dollars that I’m in favor of …

* * * * *
Excerpted from WSJ, “U.S. Firms Join Forces to Build Car Batteries”,  December 12, 2008

Many experts believe battery technology and manufacturing capacity could become as strategically important as oil is today.

Fourteen U.S. technology companies are joining forces and seeking $1 billion in federal aid to build a plant to make advanced batteries for electric cars, in a bid to catch up to Asian rivals that are far ahead of the U.S.

Two decades ago, a similar helped the U.S. computer-chip industry restore its competitiveness.

Auto makers, including General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co., say they plan to roll out plug-in electric cars by 2010. But the U.S. has limited capacity to make the lithium-ion batteries those cars will need. Most of the batteries used in today’s hybrid vehicles, including Toyota Motor Corp.’s Prius and some of GM’s hybrid models, come from Asian makers.

Though much of the advanced battery technology was developed in the U.S., American companies “opted out” of battery production because of the low returns the business offered and the U.S. has lost the lead in battery manufacturing. Asian manufacturers picked up the business because of their proximity to makers of electronic devices, which need a steady supply of batteries.

The consortium intends to solicit as much as $1 billion in federal funds from the Obama administration by tapping loan guarantees contained in an energy-security act passed last year. The act pledges as much as $7 billion in loan guarantees for advanced-battery plants in the U.S. The first large-scale lithium-ion battery plant in the U.S. could cost $1 billion to $2 billion.

Full article:
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122957206516817419.html?mod=testMod

* * * * *

Ken’s Take:

U.S. battery manufacturing must be a strategic national priority if we’re serious about becoming energy independent and carbon fuel light.

But, battery manufacturing is only part of the equation. 

The primary input to the next generation auto grade rechargeable battery is lithium.  Any idea where that element comes from? 

Hint: not the U.S.  I’ll give the answer in a subsequent post.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Bush wimps … punts automakers to Obama … UAW celebrates

December 19, 2008

An “orderly, pre-packaged reorganiztion” didn’t make the cut after all.

Instead, Bush just cut a check, loaning GM and Chrysler $17.4 billion to bridge them through the end of January. 

The “teeth”: companies have to promise to try harder.  Just kidding, that’s not even a requirement as near as I can tell.  No restructuring of overhead; UAW workers will still get $150,000 to work the line.

Bottom line: Bush got freaked that the sky would fall and didn’t have the stones to push the UAW to reopen the gold plated contract. Geez.

PS: the politics of this move are interesting …

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122969367595121563.html?mod=testMod 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Bush considering "orderly" auto bankruptcy … (for the already bankrupt automakers)

December 19, 2008

Excerpted from AP, Bush considering “orderly” auto bankruptcy, December 18, 2008

* * * * *

The Bush administration is seriously considering “orderly” bankruptcy as a way of dealing with the desperately ailing U.S. auto industry.

The White House was close to a decision …  on an auto rescue plan …  and is continuing discussions with the various sides that would have to sign on to a managed bankruptcy — entities such as labor unions and equity holders in addition to the companies themselves.

Full article:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bush-considering-orderly-auto-apf-13868234.html

* * * * *

Ken’s Take:

  1. The automakers already are bankrupt.  The new news is trying to do something orderly.
  2. Didn’t the Detroit CEO’s say that the sky would fall before Christmas?
  3. Hard to believe that UAW folks will still be drawing over $70 per hour when the auto plants are closed.  Can’t the automakers at least redeploy the workers to infrastructure projects for the month?  Guess not — union work rules.
  4. Wouldn’t surprise me if Bush played rope-a-dope until he hands the keys to Obama …

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

But, the dogs have been eating the dog food …

December 17, 2008

The Detroit auto execs have been getting pillaged for not making the kind of vehicles that consumers want to buy.

That accusation doesn’t seem to to ring true when driving down an interstate highway or walking through shopping mall parking lots.  I see plenty of SUVs, min-vans, and pick-ups with American brand names.  Some look pretty new to a casual observer.  Seems like folks are buying them.

In fact, for the past several years, about half of the best selling vehicle models are U.S. brands.  The SUVs have fallen out of the top 10, but pick-ups still top the list and at least one American car (Impala) makes the list.  Detroit may not have the car of the future, but it seems to have had some cars for the recent past.

Where are hybrids are the list?  Nowhere.  

CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo  raised that point with Congressman Barney Frank:

Does Congress realize how few hybrids have been sold, as it pushes, Detroit to make them, and will Congress give consumers greater incentives to buy these cars?

Frank’s reply was odd — even by Barney Frank standards:

“That’s a very fair point. And one of the things I’ve been saying is that some of my colleagues and the commentators who have been blaming the auto companies forget to blame somebody else—the consumers. In the recorded history of America, no one was ever forced at gunpoint to buy a Hummer. But we do believe that the combination of genuine concern about global warming and energy efficiency means people are now ready to buy these cars.”
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_51/b4113000737793.htm 

Translation:   “If the dogs don’t eat the dog food, blame the dog.”  Not exactly the “marketing concept” at work.

Ken’s take: It looks like Detroit makes vehicles that many American consumers like, but that Washington  doesn’t like .  The congressional meddlers want Detroit to make cars that are guaranteed to lose money (lots of it).  If only the dogs would eat the right food.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Feds in "stand off" over foreclosures … is that bad news or good news ?

December 16, 2008

Excerpted from Business Week, “A Standoff Over How to Rescue the Housing Market”, December 11, 2008

* * * * *

image 
        http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/12/1211_numbers/2.htm

Without reducing foreclosures and ending the slide in home prices, it will be nearly impossible to stabilize banks and lessen the depth of the recession. And sharply rising unemployment has added new urgency: Last spring, Rod Dubitsky, Credit Suisse’s (CS) head of research for asset-backed securities, projected 6.5 million foreclosures. With unemployment set to top 8% in 2009, he says up to 10 million families may lose their homes.

What’s the best way to stabilize plunging home prices?

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and his staff are considering plans to push mortgage rates down to 4.5% in hopes of bringing buyers back into the moribund market.

Democrats—in Congress and on President-elect Barack Obama’s team—seem more set on pressing lenders to renegotiate troubled mortgages. That tack, championed by FDIC head Sheila Bair, is aimed at trimming foreclosures and ending fire sales.

Bair’s plan offers a guarantee to lenders that modify a mortgage so payments are trimmed to 31% of a homeowner’s gross income. If they cut interest rates or stretch out the life of a loan, Washington would cover part of the lender’s losses should a homeowner redefault. Bair says the plan would save 1.5 million homeowners at a cost of $24.4 billion. [Note; lenders would get subsidies only on loans that redefault.]

But conflicting investor interests make it legally tough to modify securitized loans. And new statistics suggest that more than half of loans modified early this year are already at least 30 days past due.

Treasury says it’s studying several options, including the plan to subsidize low rates. Proponents say that by bringing new buyers to the market, the move could help end the pricing slide.   Problem is, low rates would do little for those now facing foreclosure or trapped in homes worth less than their mortgages.

Full article:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_51/b4113030318539.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

* * * * *

Ken’s Take:

In rough numbers …

  1. 2/3’s of roughly 125 million households are owner-occupied
  2. 1/3 of owner-occupied households are owned free and clear of any mortgage
  3. 20% of mortgages are sub-prime; most with no down payment; many “under water”
  4. Vast majority  of sub-primes were “unqualified” at fair market (vs. “teaser”) interest rates
  5. 12% of sub-primes are in foreclosure, accounting for 40% of total foreclosures
  6. 50% of foreclosed sub-primes don’t qualify at modified terms (e.g. writing loan down to house’s FMV)
  7. 50% of modified sub-prime loans re-default within 6 months

image

Bottom line: Many of the people being foreclosed on are “occupants” not “owners”.  Help legitimate owners who are going through some tough times; stop delaying the inevitable for the sub-primes — and certainly don’t reward them with deals better than the people who played by rules have.  That’s not fair !

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Playing hard ball … UAW says "$75 per hour sounds about right" … what happened to "no more special interests in Washington"?

December 12, 2008

Below are a few highlights from today’s WSJ report on the apparent collapse of the Detroit 3 bailout loan.  My ‘take’ and predictions follow …

* * * * *

Highlights excerpted from WSJ, Rescue Bid for Detroit Collapses in Senate, Dec. 12, 2008

A frantic, last-ditch attempt to forge a relief package for the auto industry collapsed in the U.S. Senate, dealing a giant blow to the immediate hopes of the Big Three.

The talks, which appeared close to a deal several times, broke off due to a sharp partisan dispute over the wages paid to workers at the manufacturing giants.

Republicans demanded the bill be strengthened to exact concessions from the industry. “We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize failure”

The initial White House-backed package saying it doesn’t require auto makers and their unions, suppliers, creditors and dealers to make changes needed to return to a sound financial footing.

[Now, both Democrats and the car companies] hope the White House will now relent and allow the Treasury to provide emergency loans from the $700 billion Wall Street fund.

Harry Reid said the Senate would be in recess, and would stand in pro forma session until January, when the new Congress will be convened with stronger Democratic majorities.

After a marathon day of negotiations, top Democrats appeared close to a deal that would toughen the bailout package in a bid to raise Republican support, which had proved an insurmountable stumbling block. The focus of talks was on seeking commitments to restructure the industry’s debt load and bring labor costs in line with wages paid by Toyota and Nissan  in the U.S.

But those talks fell apart after Republicans insisted that wages reach parity in 2009.  Mr. Reid declared talks at an impasse.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, complained that Republicans had attempted to turn the wage issue into a political matter about organized labor, instead of making it an “an economic issue.”

The collapse of the talks represents a major defeat for three companies and an auto union that once wielded immense political clout. Even after two appearances in Washington by the GM, Ford and Chrysler CEOs, and a show of solidarity with the UAW, the auto makers were unable to convince many skeptical lawmakers to change their minds and support a bailout.

GM will also discuss plans for its Saturn division. One option includes putting the division into bankruptcy protection, as it is technically a separate entity.

The collapse of the deal raises the stakes for Chrysler and its majority owner, Cerberus Capital. Lawmakers had called for Cerberus to put more money into the company, but Cerberus maintains it can’t because the bylaw of its investment funds prevents it from putting more than a small percentage of its investors’ funds into any single investment.

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122903816924599853.html?mod=testMod

* * * * *

Ken’s Take

  1. There is zero chance that the Detroit 3 can survive with  line workers getting $150,000 per year in salary and benefits.  Yes, it was weak management (in the 1970s, when business was booming and the UAW was striking) that saddled the companies with the problem.  But, there is no imaginable plan that can neutralize a $1,500 to $2,000 per car cost disadvantage.  Adding a  $5,000 battery to each car doesn’t solve the problem — it only exacerbates it.
  2. The problem isn’t “wages”.  The difference in take-home pay between Detroit and the “transplants” is only a couple of dollars.  The problems are gold-plated benefits (about twice as much for the Detroiters,  restrictive work rules that limit flexibility to move workers around (within the plants), and “featherbedding” — paying non-workers. 
  3. This is the issue that will really test Prez-O.  He campaigned, in part, on “no special interests”.  Well, the UAW threw $11 million into his campaign coffers and probably expect some “considerations”.  We’ll see …
  4. My favorite: Cerebus says it can’t throw in more money because of its by-laws.  That is being said at a time that there’s pressure to legislate the re-writing of mortgages and practically every other contract in America.  B.S.  Cerebus knows it’s good money after bad — and they want it to come from taxpayer’s pockets, not their’s.
  5. The “car czar” idea is frighteningly stupid.  Let’s see: the SEC, etc.,  can’t effectively oversee financial companies,  Boards of Directors can’t seem to oversee companies that they’re responsible for …. but, some uber-dude will be able to parachute in, learn a very complex business at warp speed, and — oh yeah — get the UAW in line.  Call me cynical, but I don’t think so.

* * * * *

Ken’s Predictions

  1. Bush will cave and fund the initial stages of this folly … with few “teeth” in the plan except to make the companies promise to “try hard”.
  2. Any teeth that are put in will be relaxed or reversed  on January 21, 2009.  The money will flow from Washington to Detroit, the UAW will prosper, and the Detroit 3 will still be teetering on bankruptcy. 
  3. A car czar will be appointed — the lobbying and politics will be overwhelming — and the poor sap will fail

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

What’s wrong with this statement: “People won’t buy cars from an automaker in bankruptcy”

December 12, 2008

I’ve heard this refrain at least a dozen times on CNBC today.  It’s been repeated so many times that it’s starting to take on the aura of fact.

Let’s dig a little deeper.  Pundits are saying “people who are surveyed say they won’t buy a car from a bankrupt automaker”.

Well, guess what.  The Detroit 3 (or at least GM and Chrysler are bankrupt!

The “fine hair” of difference is whether they go through a “bankruptcy proceeding” that potentially restructures them (and their burdensome union contracts) into a healthier condition.

I’m sure the survey question is — at least implicitly — “would you be more likely to buy a car from a financially healthy automaker or one that is bankrupt?”  Obvious answer, right?

The question should be “would you be more likely to buy a car from an automaker in bankruptcy proceedings, or one that is hanging by its financial finger nails and likely to go into formal bankruptcy in a couple of monthes?”  Rational answer: “none of the above”

What am I missing?

* * * * *
Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Let’s get some accountability … Ask your Congressman to put his "you-know-whats" on the table if he votes for the bailout … Better yet, demand it !

December 9, 2008

Ken’s Take: All of these bailouts are flat out nuts.  The worst is the seemingly inevitable tossing of money down the Detroit sink hole.  There is no chance whatsoever that Detroit get on the road to prosperity.  They can’t compete with a $1,500 or more cost disadvantage on every car sold, and the politicos are determined to patronize the UAW. Getting rid of senior management bonuses and corporate planes doesn’t even qualify as rounding error.  A fundamental restructuring of overhead costs (i.e. massive white collar layoffs) and a competitive labor agreement are required.  Neither will happen. If ever there were a case of putting good money after bad, this is it.  No government loans will ever be repaid — either the companies won’t have the wherewithal to repay or the loans will be forgiven by Congress if the companies act like they’re doing something green.

To vent my frustrations, I emailed my Congressman — asking him to make a simple pledge to the dwindling number of taxpayers.  I know it won’t change anything, but I felt better.  You should try it.

* * * * *

Congressional Accountabilty Pledge 

Dear Mr. Congressman:

Stop wasting my tax dollars.

There is no chance that the Detroit 3 will repay bailout loans made to them.

If you vote affirmatively to approve any bailout loans, in any form, to any or all of the Detroit 3 automakers, you should accept personal accountability for your vote and make a binding, irrevocable public commitment to resign your government position on January 1, 2011 if the loans have not been repaid to the government in full by then, regardless of circumstances.

Period.

Your’s truly,

One of a dwindling number of taxpayers

* * * * *

To email your Congressional Representative:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

From the folks who want to micro-manage Detroit: 3 years late and 134% over budget … geez.

December 9, 2008

Three years behind schedule and almost $360 million above budget, the Capitol Visitor Center  is to open to the public on Dec. 2.

The final cost of the project is put at $621 million, more than double the $265 million estimated cost had the center been completed on schedule in December, 2005.

Security was a key factor in the cost overruns. Congress decided to add two tunnels, one for truck deliveries and one linking the Capitol with the Library of Congress, that could also serve as emergency evacuation routes.

Then there were the usual overruns associated with a project where 9,000 workers set more than 400,000 pieces of stone, some weighing as much as 500 pounds. The excavation phase required the removal of 65,000 truckloads of dirt.Congress also approved the addition of House and Senate office space.

* * * * *

Excerpted from MSNBC, “Capitol Visitor Center opens after delay, cost overrun”, Nov. 10, 2008

Full article:
 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27648214/ 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Congressional oversight of the Detroit 3 … That’s a joke, right?

December 7, 2008

Ken’s Take: There is zero chance that the Detroit 3 will pay back any bailout loans.  Period.

Restoring competitiveness against the “foreign transplants” requires substantial restructuring than won’t be done under the ever watchful eyes of a business-ignorant Congress (how many Reps and Senators have ever run a ‘for-profit’ company — or for that matter — even held a real job?) or until the labor contract is seriously renegotiated (no company can afford to pay factory laborers $150,000 per year in wages & benefits).

Bankruptcy is inevitable,  Let’s bite the bullet and get it over with …

* * * * *

Excerpted from IBD, “Prepackaged Failure”, December 05, 2008 

Sentiment running 62% against a bailout for the automakers.

But, Congressional Democrats are desperate to bail out the Big Three — but even more desperate to bail out the automakers’ unions. After all,the UAW spent more than $11 million in the last election cycle to elect Democrats.

Even a “prepackaged” bankruptcy  … doesn’t stand a chance because the unions reject it out of hand. As UAW President Ron Gettelfinger put it, prepackaged bankruptcy is “not a viable option.” Translation: Unions would have to make big, and permanent, concessions.

That leaves the latest bright idea:  Congress would in essence become the Big Three’s uber-manager, telling them how to become profitable again.

Excuse us, but are we supposed to believe that the same Congress responsible for next year’s estimated $1 trillion deficit can profitably run a market-sensitive company like a car manufacturer?

Or that the same Congress that sat on its hands as the financial meltdown unfolded and helped create the mess will know how to financially restructure America’s highly complex auto business?

Or that the people who just last year imposed $85 billion in new “efficiency” standards on a teetering industry will be savvy enough to run them anywhere but further into the ground?

Does Congress have the know-how to do this? Of the 11 Democrat members on the Senate Banking Committee who grilled Big Three CEOs last Thursday, and who will decide the outlines of any bailout plan, just one Senator — Montana’s Jon Tester, a farmer and former manager of a butcher shop — had any real business experience.

None of the rest, from committee chairman Chris Dodd on down, has any private-sector experience to speak of, apart from brief stints at law firms. Fact is, Congress isn’t equipped to run anything.

The Big Three are burning through $6 billion a month, so $34 billion won’t last long. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, or something like it, would at least let them get out from under costly union contracts.

Given union opposition, this is highly unlikely, even though about 77% of all billion-dollar companies survive bankruptcy. 

Those are better odds than congressional mismanagement would offer.

Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=313373158944445

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

A FICA tax holiday? … It’s worth considering.

December 5, 2008

Inspired by IBD, “Bail Out Bill Or Bail Out Joe?”, December 04, 2008

* * * * *

From the article

Nancy Pelosi (wants) another bailout bill in the neighborhood of $500 billion to be ready for President Obama’s signature on Jan. 20.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, has come up with an idea of what to do with that $350 billion, and it involves not rescuing those who have gummed up the works, but relieving the burden on those who have been trying to pull the wagon — suspend FICA and income taxes for two months starting in January 2009.

Gohmert would declare a tax holiday for FICA (Social Security and Medicare) and income taxes.

American taxpayers [a slim majority of adults] pay an average of 25% of their wages in federal income taxes.  [Virtually all American workers pay another 7.25% for FICA — which funds Social Security and Medicare.]

So, in aggregate, Americans pay over $101 billion in income taxes and another $66.5 billion in FICA taxes each month. Two months’ worth is around $332 billion. The employer’s portion of FICA would also be suspended, giving businesses large and small $65 billion in tax relief to expand and hire more workers.

[For an average American family making about $50,000 a year, the FICA tax is about $300 per month — taken directly out of their paychecks.] So, there would be a dramatic increase in take-home pay for the working poor and middle class, and might save more homeowners from bankruptcy and foreclosure.

And, the unspent $350 billion left in the government’s TARP fund could be used to cover the revenue losses in the Treasury, so Social Security and Medicare would not lose a penny.

* * * * *

Ken’s Take

(1) The income tax part is a non-starter for reasons of “fairness” and administration — since withholding doesn’t match perfectly with end-of-year tax liabilities.  Some people have too much withheld and get refunds; some have too little withheld and pay taxes on April 15.

(2) But, I think the the FICA suspension has merit.  Prior to the election, I was opposed to co-mingling income taxes with  “contributions” to the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds (they’re called “contributions” in the statutes).  But, Obama’s “relief” to the middle class irreversibly lumps them together — folks who don’t pay income taxes get credit checks if they pay so-called payroll taxes. 

(3) So, why not dole out the payroll tax related tax relief in the fastest, administratively easiest way.  Ditch the income tax part of the proposal and suspend FICA for a couple of months. 

I think IBD screwed up the math a bit.  Employers have to match employees’ FICA contributions dollar-for-dollar — so the FICA  free-up would be about $130 billion per month.

The  FICA tax holiday could be extended to 3 or 4 or 5 months by simply capping the monthly “holiday” at, say, $300 per worker so that high income folks don’t get too much of the benefit .

(4) While I still don’t like the co-mingling of income taxes and SS-Medicare contributions, I do like the potential stimulative aspects of the plan: (a) the paycheck effect of the plan would be significant to lower income folks (b) businesses — especially those employing lower and middle income folks get a tax break — which allows them to hire more workers (or stay in business).

(5) Note: this is largely Obama’s middle class tax relief — “rebranding” the philosophically repulsive “refundable tax credits” and adding some tax relief for employers.
 
* * * * *
Full IBD article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=313284571794137 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

To stimulate the economy, break a few windows … huh ?

December 5, 2008

158 years ago, the  pioneering French economist Frederic Bastiat, wrote about the “broken window fallacy.”

It goes like this: Most people agree that when someone breaks a store window, it’s a tragedy for the shopkeeper. But many also believe the overall economy actually benefits, because the shopkeeper now must buy a new window, a kind of “stimulus.”

This logic, of course, makes no sense.

Yet it’s the basic idea behind all government stimulus plans. The money for the window comes out of the shopkeeper’s pocket. Instead of carrying more stock in his store, or hiring a clerk, he must spend his money instead on a window. So the “stimulus” is really zero — or negative.

* * * * *

Excerpted from IBD, “The Cost Of Green”, December 03, 2008
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=313199997499579

* * * * *

Ken’s Take: Also keep in mind that the government is playing with OTM — “other people’s money” — your’s, if you’re one of the dwindling number of taxpayers.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

In the new political economy, smart lobbyists will be arriving in hybrids …

December 1, 2008

Excerpted from IBD, “Job One: Wean The Economy Off Of Politics”,  Krauthammer,  November 28, 2008

* * * * * 

We have gone from a market economy to a political economy.

In the old days, if you wanted to get rich, you did it the Warren Buffett way: You learned to read income statements and balance sheets. Today you learn to read political tea leaves.

Today’s extreme stock market volatility is largely a reaction to meta-economic events: political decisions that have vast economic effects. You don’t anticipate Intel’s third-quarter earnings; instead, you guess what side of the bed Henry Paulson will wake up on tomorrow.

We may one day go back to a market economy. Meanwhile,  the two most important implications of our newly politicized economy are the vastly increased importance of lobbying and the massive market inefficiencies that political directives will introduce.

Lobbying used to be about advantages at the margin — a regulatory break here, a subsidy there. Now lobbying is about life and death.

You used to go to New York for capital. Now Wall Street, broke, is coming to Washington. With unimaginably large sums of money being given out, Washington will be subject to the most intense, most frenzied lobbying in American history.

The other kind of economic distortion will come from the political directives issued by newly empowered politicians.

For example, bank presidents are gravely warned by one senator after another about “hoarding” their bailout money. But hoarding is another word for recapitalizing to shore up your balance sheet to ensure solvency. Isn’t pushing money out the window with too little capital precisely the lending laxity that produced this crisis in the first place?

Even more egregious will be the directives to a nationalized Detroit. Sen. Schumer, the noted automotive engineer, has declared “a business model based on gas” to be completely unacceptable. He says,  “We need a business model based on cars of the future: the plug-in hybrid electric car.”

The Chevy Volt, for example? It has huge remaining technological hurdles, gets 40 miles on a charge and will sell for about $40,000, necessitating a $7,500 outright government subsidy. Who but the rich and politically correct will choose that over a $12,000 gas-powered Hyundai?

The new Detroit churning out Schumer-mobiles will make the steel mills of the Soviet Union look the model of efficiency.

* * * * *

Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=312760589983880 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Stimulus rebates would be so much better … if they worked.

November 26, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ, “Permanent Tax Cuts Are the Best Stimulus”, Taylor, Nov. 25, 2008

* * * * *

The major part of the first stimulus package was the $115 billion, temporary rebate payment program targeted to individuals and families that phased out as incomes rose. Most of the rebate checks were mailed or directly deposited during May, June and July.

The argument in favor of these temporary rebate payments was that they would increase consumption, stimulate aggregate demand, and thereby get the economy growing again. What were the results? The chart below reveals the answer.
The upper line shows disposable personal income through September. Disposable personal income is what households have left after paying taxes and receiving transfers from the government. The big blip is due to the rebate payments in May through July.
The lower line shows personal consumption expenditures by households. Observe that consumption shows no noticeable increase at the time of the rebate. Hence, by this simple measure, the rebate did little or nothing to stimulate consumption, overall aggregate demand, or the economy.

[Commentary]

Based on the permanent-income theory of Milton Friedman, and the life-cycle theory of Franco Modigliani, temporary increases in income will not lead to significant increases in consumption. However, if increases are longer-term, as in the case of permanent tax cut, then consumption is increased, and by a significant amount.

The mantra often heard during debates about the first stimulus was that it should be temporary, targeted and timely. I recommend alternative principles: permanent, pervasive and predictable

Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757149157954723.html 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

On private planes and Congressional hypocrisy …

November 24, 2008

Ken’s Take: The Big 3 CEO’s conspicuously flying in on corporate jets was bad PR, for sure.  But, if you accept that CEO time is somewhat valuable (just reduce their bloated compensation down to a per hour rate to get the idea), do you really want htem spending work time waiting in the queue at a Southwest kiosk or being banned from making cell phone calls when in air?  I think not.  More to the point: Grandma Homa used to say “don’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.”  When Speaker Pelosi flies to Detroit to deliver the $25 billion check (or is it $50 billion), think she’ll fly commercial?  Read on for a reminder…

* * * * *

Excerpted from SFgate.com, “The House speaker has had the use of a government jet”, Feb. 8, 2007

The way Speaker Nancy Pelosi will travel home to San Francisco and on official business is the latest tempest to hit the House of Representatives.

The speaker of the House has been provided a jet from the government fleet to use for official business since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert used a military 12-seat jet to carry him mainly from Washington’s Andrews Air Force Base to airports near his home district in Chicago’s suburbs.

Pelosi has been pressing the Pentagon to provide her with a bigger jet than used by Hastert so she can ferry family, other lawmakers and lobbyists across the country.

(Congressional critics said) Pelosi’s bid for a bigger plane, which he dubbed “Air Force Three,” shows “an arrogance of office that just defies common sense” and constitutes a major deviation from the previous speaker’s perks. She should settle for a smaller plane even if it means having to stop for refueling while traveling to and from California.

Full article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/08/MNGN5O11UT1.DTL&type=printable

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Dow = 7,500 … Where in the world is President-elect Obama?

November 21, 2008

As I predicted on the day before the election, if Obama won, the Dow would fall to 7,500.  Well, it did.

Of course, there are mega-financial pressures completely unrelated to Obama’s election. 

But, he left some undetonated campaign grenades that unsettle the market.  Will he raise taxes on businesses and investors next year?  Last word from him: yes.  Will he protect UAW jobs in Detroit with a bailout?  Last word: yes.  Who will be hisTreasury Secretary?  Last word: hold your pants on.

At minimum, Obama should name Paulson’s successor and pledge to hold tax rates where they are until they expire naturally in 2010.

If he wanted to do something bolder, he should cut capital gains tax rates to zero for stocks bought from now until the end of 2009.

Regardless, he’s got to quit playing paddycake with Hillary, come out of hiding, and give investors some reason to believe.

* * * * *

Note: I stand by my other market prediction: if Franken wins and Chambliss loses — the Dow will have it’s largest 1-day decline ever — at least 1,000 points.   Hope this one goes unverifiable.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Opinion: Boost the national debt and make the next generation pay for it!

November 21, 2008

I used to think that the escalating national debt was a serious economic problem — creating an enormous, painful burden that would  be shifted to our sons & daughters.

I’ve stopped fretting.  Why ?

Exit polls indicate that collegians craved “change” and voted overwhelmingly for Obama — at least 2 to 1. 

Obama’s ambitious agenda of government programs will cost trillions of dollars. 

Rather than raising taxes on the folks who don’t want change, why not shift the burden to those who do?

It’s called poetic justice.   

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

The perils of one man, one vote …

November 21, 2008

Excerpted from Zogby Poll, “How Obama Got Elected”, Nov. 19, 2008
* * * * *

The Survey

The sample: 512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
Margin of Error MOE +/- 4.4 points

* * * * *

Most Damning57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

* * * * *

Talk about being well-informed

88.4% denied that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% denied that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% denied that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

But…..

83.6%%  identified Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

94.8%  identified Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

* * * * *

Zogby’s Reply to Criticism of the Survey

“We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn’t. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that’s exactly what we did. We don’t have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion.” – John Zogby

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1642 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Part 2 … Declaring war: First shots fired in tax payers’ revolt .

November 20, 2008

President-elect Obama has a mega-challenge: he has promised many additional high cost government programs, but his plan reduces the number of folks paying taxes, the slow economy is cutting incomes (hence, there’s less to tax), and if my observations are right, the surviving group of tax payers is working feverishly to pay as little in taxes as the law allows.

So, one might ask: where is the soon-to-be President Obama going to get the money he needs to fund his ambitious programs?

Option 1: Go through the budget “line by line with a scalpel” and redeploy the freed-up money.  Nice try, but every spending line in the budget has a sponsor and a constituency. And, practically every cut ultimately calls for lopping off some government workers (who may be union members or protected by Civil Service) or contractor employees.  As VP, Al Gore took a noble shot at “reengineering” the government for greater efficiency.  He eventually gave up and went after a more modest challenge: global climate change.

Option 2: Raise corporate taxes, ostensibly by just closing loopholes.  Remember every so-called loophole has a constituency and a purpose. Does this seem like a time to further threaten global competitiveness and risk spiraling the recession into a depression?

Option 3: Hit the top 5% with even bigger tax hikes.  Despite it’s inherent populous appeal, this tactic could just aggravate another cycle of aggressive tax avoidance.

Option 4: Take back the “tax relief” promised to the 95% and make everybody buy a ticket to ride – even if their “fair share” is just a small token amount.  This approach could raise some serious money since there are a lot of people in the 95%. But it wouldn’t be politically survivable.  Just ask President Bush Forty-One.

Option 5: Continue to deficit-spend like drunken sailors. After all, it was easy to approve a $700 billion bailout, complemented with $150 billion in earmarks.

Sure, the last option – more deficit spending — would pass another trillion or two in national debt on to our sons and daughters. So what? The overwhelming majority of them craved change and voted for Obama. It’s poetic justice for them get stuck with the bill.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Declaring war: First shots fired in tax payers’ revolt.

November 19, 2008

A potentially fatal flaw in President-elect Obama’s tax plan is its implicit assumption that the dwindling group of citizens left paying income taxes won’t change their ways – except for allowing more of their earnings to be copped by the government for redistribution. 

Vice President-elect Biden has declared that such socio-economic passivity would be patriotic.  Cynical observers characterize the behavior more clinically as “bending over”.

While my observed sample is admittedly small and may not be representative of a broader population, I’m seeing the early stages of a full blown tax payers’ revolt.  Now that the ballots have been counted, some of the folks left holding the tax bag are hatching plans to vote again – this time with their pocketbooks,  Many are dusting off pre-Reagan tax planning playbooks to defer or avoid as much of Obama’s added tax burden as they legally can.

How they’re doing it 

For example, many people are doing the obvious: taking capital gains now at the current 15% rate and reinvesting in “like grade and quality” securities that they plan to hold until the capital gains rate comes back down (as it eventually will – it always does). 

Other folks are moving money to tax-free bonds and tax deferred annuities – accepting lower apparent returns just to avoid higher taxes.  

More daring investors are redeploying capital out of the U.S. – opening off-shore accounts and buying real estate in foreign locales. 

A few of the most aggressive folks are seriously pursuing citizenship in more tax-friendly nations.  One friend-of-a-friend has already moved to Mexico and changed her family’s citizenship. 

Then, there’s “income management”. Those who are close to the $250,000 threshold are managing their incomes to slip under the tax-exploding trigger. Why work 60 hours per week for the same after tax income as working, say, 40 hours?

Some corporate execs are reportedly lobbying compensation committees to get annual bonuses accelerated into the 2008 tax year. Tax-deductible expenses (e.g. December’s mortgage payment, charitable gifts) are being delayed until after the first of the year – when they’ll provide a bigger tax advantage.

* * * * *

Why they’re doing it 

Why all these shenanigans ? For some tax payers, it’s simple economics; for others, it’s personal.

Many folks in the much maligned top 5% — and many in the next lower layers who suspect that they’ll be the next targets – are feeling a bit disenfranchised at the moment. They tip their hats to Obama for compiling a formidable voting block of constituents who ride free with no income tax liability or get paid to ride – receiving refundable credit checks from the government. And, they know that when Obama’s tax plan goes into effect, the free riders will constitute a voting majority.

Some narrow-minded tax payers just don’t see the inherent fairness of wealth redistribution that Obama and Biden see. Many “top-fivers” are ready and willing to pay a little more in taxes for schools, roads, and tanks, but bristle at the notion of having their hard earned money redistributed to folks that Barack Obama considers more deserving. They say: that’s not the American way. In fact, some consider it to be bordering on taxation without representation – a traditional American no-no.

All of this presents the President-elect with a mega-challenge: he has promised many additional high cost government programs, but his plan reduces the number of folks paying taxes, the slow economy is cutting incomes (hence, there’s less to tax), and if my observations are right, the surviving group of tax payers is working feverishly to pay as little in taxes as the law allows.

So, one might ask: where is the soon-to-be President Obama going to get the money he needs to fund his ambitious programs?

* * * * *
(to be continued tomorrow)

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

One man’s stimulus is another man’s redistribution … think about it.

November 17, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ, “Why Spending Stimulus Plans Fail”, Riedl, Nov. 14, 2008

* * * * *

Government stimulus bills are based on the idea that feeding new money into the economy will increase demand, and thus production.  They always fail.  There’s a simple reason why. What Congress gives to some it takes away from others.

Where does government get this money? Congress doesn’t have its own stash. Every dollar it injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It’s merely redistributed from one group of people to another.

Advocates of stimulus respond that redistributing money from “savers” to “spenders” will lead to additional spending.

That assumes that savers store spare cash in their mattresses, thereby removing it from the economy. In reality, nearly all Americans either invest their savings (where it finances business investment) or deposit it in banks (which lend it to others to spend). The money gets spent whether it is initially consumed or saved.

Governments don’t create new purchasing power out of thin air. If Congress funds new spending with taxes, it is redistributing existing income. If the money is borrowed from American investors, those investors will have that much less to invest or to spend in the private economy.

Yet Congress will repeatedly borrow money from one group of people and then give it to another group of people and tell us we’re all wealthier for it.

It’s time for lawmakers to stop futilely trying to wave the magic wand of short-term “stimulus” spending, which threatens to push the deficit above $1 trillion. Focusing on productivity will build a stronger economy over the long run and leave America better prepared to handle future economic downturns.

* * * * *

Full op-ed:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122663413095027641.html

* * * * *

Ken’s Take: It often frustrates me that people don’t understand that corporations and the government are simply stewards of other people’s money.  When you tax a corporation, you’re simply taxing investors or customers (via higher prices); when the government spends, it’s spending tax payers money — there is no “government money”.

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

The government should save General Motors … why?

November 13, 2008

Excerpted from IBD, “Pulling Plug On GM Would Help Both Auto Industry And Michigan”,  John Tamny,  November 11, 2008

* * * * *

Ludwig Von Mises once wrote that the entrepreneur who fails to use his capital to the “best possible satisfaction of consumers” is “relegated to a place in which his ineptitude no longer hurts people’s well-being.”

General Motors … is the living embodiment of managerial ineptitude, and to ensure that it no longer fails its customers while harming the well-being of Americans more broadly, it’s essential to let the firm die.

GM’s continued existence under weak management has served as a capital repellant such that capital and jobs will continue to flee the state if GM is saved with the money of others.

* * * * *

Businesses rarely fail due to a lack of money. Instead, poorly run businesses find it hard to raise money in the capital markets. Government money allows the architects of bad decisions to continue making mistakes that cause a company to be capital-deficient to begin with. Capital is correctly searching for better opportunities.

Paradoxical as it sounds, GM’s bankruptcy would be a boost for Michigan’s economy and the U.S. auto sector generally.

Far from vanishing, many of GM’s assets would be quickly purchased by competent foreign automakers eager to expand their capacity in what is the world’s largest auto market. The list of well-run car companies, from Toyota to Nissan to Porsche, is long.

So while the cries of certain Armageddon would be ear splitting in the event of a GM failure, the U.S. auto sector would actually emerge much healthier thanks to a change in ownership that would be the certain result of GM going under.

* * * * *

In the end, the state of Michigan and the U.S. automobile sector are struggling not due to back luck, but precisely because they cling to a company that investors no longer value.

So rather than waste precious capital in the naive hope of propping up that which investors don’t value, it’s essential to let GM fail.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311297941730996

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

The Election … some numbers

November 13, 2008

Excerpted from  TheHill.com , Dick Morris, November 11, 2008

* * * * *

Turnout did not increase substantially. Despite predictions  of a vastly greater voter turnout, it didn’t happen. Turnout rose by about 5 million (4%) between 2004 (122 million) and 2008 (127 million).  In contrast, turnout increase almost 20% between 2000 and 2004.

As expected, Obama generated a big increase in African-American voter turnout. Exit polls estimate that blacks constituted 13 percent of the turnout in 2008, compared with 11 percent in 2004 and 10 percent in 2000.

But voters under 30 years of age were still the same 11 percent of the vote that they were in 2004. The surge of young voters failed to happen.

Full article:
http://www.vote.com/mmp_printerfriendly.php?id=1210

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Keeping score: a promise made is a promise kept … right?

November 11, 2008

Excerpted from IBD, “A Checklist Of Obama’s Many Promises”. November 10, 2008

* * * * *

Few presidential candidates have made more specific promises to American voters than Barack Obama. They came fast and furious.    So as a public service, IBD put together a handy checklist of some of the biggest Obama promises — culled from his “Blueprint for Change,” his campaign speeches and advertisements. 

Ken’s favorites are bolded. 

* * * * *

Taxes

• Give a tax break to 95% of Americans.

• Restore Clinton-era tax rates on top income earners.

• “If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime. Not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes. Nothing.”

• Dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes.

• Give American businesses a $3,000 tax credit for every job they create in the U.S.

• Eliminate capital gains taxes for small business and startup companies.

• Eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000.

• Expand the child and dependent care tax credit.

• Expand the earned income tax credit.

• Create a universal mortgage credit.

• Create a small business health tax credit.

Provide a $500 “make work pay” tax credit.

• Provide a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to families.

Energy

• Spend $15 billion a year on renewable sources of energy.

• Eliminate oil imports from the Middle East in 10 years.

• Increase fuel economy standards by 4% a year.

• Weatherize 1 million homes annually.

• Ensure that 10% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012.

Environment

• Create 5 million green jobs.

• Implement a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• Get 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015.

Labor

• Sign a fair pay restoration act, which would overturn the Supreme Court’s pay discrimination ruling.

• Sign into law an employee free choice act — aka card check — [that eliminate secret ballots in union elections] 

• Make employers offer seven paid sick days per year.

• Increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2009.

National security

• Remove troops from Iraq by the summer of 2010.

• Cut spending on unproven missile defense systems.

• No more homeless veterans.

• Stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq.

• Finish the fight against  the al-Qaida terrorists; [and capture Osama bin Laden ]

Social Security

• Work in a “bipartisan way to preserve Social Security for future generations.”

• Impose a Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000.

• Match 50% of retirement savings up to $1,000 for families earning less than $75,000.

Education

• Demand higher standards and more accountability from our teachers.

Spending

• Go through the budget, line by line, ending programs we don’t need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.

• Slash earmarks.

Health care

• Lower health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year.

• Let the uninsured get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress get.

• Stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

• Spend $10 billion over five years on health care information technology.

* * * * * 

Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=311212244872396 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Men at Work …. where ?

November 10, 2008

Let  me set the scene: you’re driving around the DC beltway or on practically any interstate highway in the U.S.  Traffic is slowing to a crawl and you see this sign.

image

Then, you drive for a couple of miles flanked by orange cones. 

How often have you actually seen ‘men working’ before you pass the sign that says “End of Work Zone.  Resume Normal Speed”.

Every time you hear the words: “Infrastructure Rebuilding Program”, just close your eyes and replay the above scene in your imagination.  It’s your money (or your kid’s money) at work …  or, not at work.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
     Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

The fine difference between a loss and a landslide …

November 6, 2008

Ken’s Take: Does 52-46 really constitute a “landslide” ? 

* * * * *

“Obama ran four points better nationally than John Kerry did in 2004 and 2.5 points better than Al Gore did in 2000. These small changes on the margin meant all the difference between winning and losing [by a “landslide’].

* * * * *
Source: WSJ, “How the President-Elect Did It”, Rove, Nov.  6, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593304225103509.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Oh, those exit polls …

November 6, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ, “How the President-Elect Did It”, Rove, Nov.  6, 2008

* * * * *

For the third election in a row the exit polls were trash.

The raw exit poll numbers forecast an 18-point Obama win.

On average, news organizations (who underwrote the poll) arbitrarily dialed it down to a 10-point Obama edge.

The actual margin was six.

* * * * *
Full article”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593304225103509.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

$1.6 billion well spent ?

November 5, 2008

Excerpted from Tech Ticker, Nov. 4, 2008

* * * * *

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a record $1.6 billion was raised by all Presidential candidates during this interminably long campaign. (The New York Times says the figure could go as high as $2 billion by Election Day.)

What else could $1.6 billion buy ?

  • Health insurance for over 130,000 families of four for one year (based on average cost of $12,000 per family per year, National Coalition on Health Care)
  • Food for 145,000 families of four for one year (based on moderate cost of $9,500 per family per year, USDA)
  • 8 million laptops for the One Laptop Per Child initiative (at $200 each, OLPC)
  • Fill the gas tank of an average car 40 million times (based on car with a 15-gallon tank with gas at $2.60/gallon)
  • Provide a great cable package for 1.3 million households for one year (Time Warner NYC cable/Internet with one premium channel)

Looking at those stats, you’d think there’d be no debate about whether the $1.6 billion was money well spent.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/105994/Most-Expensive-Campaign-Ever-What-Else-Could-1.6B-Have-Bought?tickers=%5Edji,%5Egspc,%5Eixic,SPY,DIA,QQQQ,TLTI

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

For the Record: Ken’s Election Predictions

November 4, 2008

OK, here’s what I think is going to happen.  What do you think ?  Post your predictions.

The Election

  1. The popular vote will be fairly close — at most a 3 point differential  — probably 51% Obama to 48% McCain, with 1% to the nuisance candidates.
  2. Of course, the electoral college will be determined in the battleground states.  I think one of two “all or nothing” scenarios are likely : (1) McCain comes up an inch short in most battlegrounds and Obama wins by a landslide, or (2) McCain eeks out wins in all battlegrounds — excluding Colorado, but including Pennsylvania — and McCain wins it. On Saturday Nov.1, I was leaning towards scenaio (1) — an electoral landslide for Obama. Today I’m officially declaring that I think scenario (2) will materialize and McCain will win an upset victory. Why ? Last week’s mini-rally eased some of the Wall Street angst, Catholics are breaking for McCain, “bankrupt the coal industry” woke up Pennsylvania and Ohio, Obama’s Hispanic lead is big but dissipating some,  rurals and white men are coming out of the woodwork, both the NRA and Chamber of Commerce are rallying troops under the radar for McCain, and the GOP’s well-honed micro-marketing turnout machine is quietly at work. 
  3. Dems will get to 57 Senate seats. Al Franken & Elizabeth Dole will both lose.  Ted Stevens will win.

* * * *

The Stock Market

  1. If McCain wins, the Dow will close over 10,000 on Wednesday. 
  2. If Obama wins and the Dems reach 60 Senate seats, the Dow will fall more than 1,000 points on Wednesday — the largest 1-day stock market drop in history — closing below 8,000.
  3. If Obama wins, and the Dems fail to reach a 60 in the Senate, the Dow will close Wednesday below 9,000 — will hit 7,500 before the end of the year — will fight back to around 10,000 — and will hover around 10,000 for a long, long time.

* * * * *

Sure Shots 
  1. If McCain wins, the World will shake its collective head in disgust and  liberals will claim racism, pointing to McCain’s 60% of the white vote while conveniently ignoring Obama’s 90% of the black vote.
  2. If Obama wins, the World will rejoice and the GOP will claim ACORN-induced voter fraud
  3. Regardless who wins, the country will be split down the middle and political  rancor will run high.
  4. Regardless who wins, they’ll claim that Bush left an even worse economic mess than they expected and will start watering down campaign promises.
  5. Regardless who wins, government spending will continue unabated, the deficit will loom large, and the national debt will continue to grow by leaps and bounds.
  6. Regardless who wins, all U.S. combat forces will be out of Iraq by the end of 2009; Afghanistan will be an escalating quagmire ; Osama Bin Laden will not be captured (though he may die of old age).
  7. Regardless who wins, Warren Buffett  will pay a lower tax rate than his secretary in 2009.

* * * **

Random Stuff

  1. If Obama wins, the IOC will give the 2016 Olympics to Chicago.  (thanks to Jamie Estrada, MSB MBA alum for the tip)
  2. If Obama wins, Hillary Clinton will get her coveted Supreme Court seat; if he loses, she’ll be the 2012 Dem candidate for President and win it all.
  3. If Obama loses, Bill Richardson will move to Mexico.
  4. Ted Stevens will resign his Senate post in a plea deal, and — if McCain loses — Gov. Palin will self-appoint to the Senate after punishing the folks who thought  trooper-gate was a clever campaign tactic.
  5. Joe the Plumber will make more that $250,000 — just off his book rights and TV deal.
  6. The 2012 campaign will start tomorrow …

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
 
The Homa Files Blog

 

 

 

 

 

 

An election trend to watch before declaring victory or conceding defeat …

November 3, 2008

I was about to concede on behalf of John McCain today (Sunday).  Then, a number caught my eye.  With other polls hovering around  a 5 or 6 point Obama lead, the IBD-TIPP poll (the most accurate in 2004) showed a continuing closing of the gap — to 2 points.

So, I dug down into the ‘internals’ of the poll.  Lo and behold here’s what I found.

Way back on October 22, I posted “5 Factors to Watch as the Campaigns Close”
https://kenhoma.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/for-the-record-5-factors-to-watch-as-the-campaigns-close/

* * * * *

Catholics were at the top of the list on Oct. 22 :

Catholics

According to IBD/TIPP (the most accurate poll in the 2004 election), Catholics are currently favoring Obama over McCain 47% to 43%
http://ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309299583450546

Ken’s Take: Watch this shift as Catholic bishops remind church goers that the sanctity of life is a fundamental tenet of the Church.  The abortion debate has been back-burnered, watch it heat up

* * * * *

Well, look what’s happened in the past week:

image

Bottom line: According to IBD-TIPP, McCain has gained 7 points among Catholics; Obama is down 6 in the past week and down 9 from his high water mark of 47%.  So, the current gap is 13 and the trend appears to be in McCain’s favor. And, there are still 10% undecideds.

That’s probably why McCain has been spending a lot of time in Pennsylvania — a state with a lot of rural voters who support him and a lot of Catholics who seem to be swinging his way.

How can the trend be explained?  Well, many Catholic bishops have been explicitly clarifying the Church’s standing on some pivotal issues, and a 527 called the GOP Trust has been blanketing swing states with a hard-hitting Rev. Wright TV spot. To view it:  http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/ 

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out on Tuesday..

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Bankrupt the coal industry ?

November 3, 2008

Sourced from Newsbusters.com, Nov.2, 2008.  Well-traveled on right-leaning stations and sites this weekend.

* * * * *

Ken’s Take

McCain’s persistence in Pennsylvania has had me scratching my head.  I think the code was broken this weekend. In another post lthis morning, I recount data that seems to indicate a shift in Catholic voters towards McCain (Obama had been leading).  Perhaps even more significant is an audio clip of an interview that Obama gave saying that his energy policy will “bankrupt the coal industry”.  That may be the right answer environmentally, but the wrong answer politically in some swing states that rely on coal for jobs and energy.

Hearing the words is way more powerful than reading the transcript (which is below).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

* * * * *

From Newsbusters

Barack Obama actually flat out told the San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) that he was willing to see the coal industry go bankrupt in a January 17, 2008 interview.

The result? Nothing. This audio interview has been hidden from the public…until now. Here is the transcript of Obama’s statement about bankrupting the coal industry:

Obama: ” Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

Article source:
http://newsbusters.org/node/25829?q=blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry

Audio link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Where McCain & Obama stand on economic issues

November 3, 2008

Source: CNNMoney.com , Oct. 31, 2008
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/106069/Your-Money:-McCain-vs.-Obama#1

* * * * *

The best recap I’ve found — gives Obama some ‘benefits of doubt’, but is generally a factual and balanced presentation of the candidates’ positions.  It’s long, but it’s required reading for responsible voters

* * * * *

Budget Deficit

Now that the government has committed over $1 trillion to stabilize the financial system and economic growth is expected to slow, the country’s growing deficits aren’t something the next president can ignore. Yet neither candidate has adequately addressed what changes he would make to accommodate the new fiscal reality. Both men speak of the need to restore fiscal responsibility while in the same breath promising more tax cuts and proposing spending cuts that are hard to achieve.

Obama

Enforce budget rules that would require that new spending be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.
Reduce spending on earmarks to no greater than 2001 levels and require more transparency on such spending.
Help pay for new proposals by drawing down troops in Iraq war, raising taxes on high-income filers and cutting certain corporate loopholes.
“Once we get through this economic crisis … we’re not going to be able to go back to our profligate ways. We’re going to have to embrace a culture and an ethic of responsibility, all of us, corporations, the federal government, and individuals out there who may be living beyond their means.”

McCain

Originally pledged to balance budget by 2013. But McCain adviser now says it will take longer.
Slow growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending.
Eliminate funds for pet projects, known as earmarks.
Help pay for tax cuts by creating new jobs in the clean energy sector and developing new automotive technologies, which in turn will boost economic growth.
“Government spending has gone completely out of control; $10 trillion dollar debt we’re giving to our kids, a half-a-trillion dollars we owe China. I know how to save billions of dollars in defense spending. I know how to eliminate programs.”

* * * * *

Economic Crisis Response

Both candidates have proposed measures to help Americans cope with the economic downturn and stock market collapse. McCain’s proposals focus on helping seniors and investors. Obama wants to let savers tap into the retirement plans without early-withdrawal penalties.

Obama

Temporarily allow penalty-free early withdrawals from IRAs and 401(k)s of up to 15% of the balance but not more than $10,000.
Temporarily suspend rule that seniors age 70 1/2 take required annual distribution from retirement account.
Give temporary tax credit of $3,000 in 2009 and 2010 to companies for each new full-time employee it hires in the United States.
Temporarily eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits.
Require financial institutions participating in bailout to put a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures for homeowners “acting in good faith.”
Let federal government lend to state and municipal governments to help counter the budget crunch faced by states due to the mortgage crisis.
“We must move forward, quickly and aggressively, with a middle-class rescue plan that will create jobs, provide relief to families, help homeowners and restore our financial system.”

McCain

Temporarily suspend rule that seniors age 70 1/2 take required annual distribution from retirement account.
Tax withdrawals of up to $50,000 from IRAs and 401(k)s at 10% in 2008 and 2009.
Reduce capital gains tax to 7.5% from 15% for two years.
Increase amount of capital losses that may be used to offset ordinary income to $15,000 from $3,000 for 2008 and 2009.
Temporarily eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits.
Buy bad mortgages and renegotiate loan terms based on current value of home.
Convert failing mortgages into low-interest, FHA-insured loans.
“…I will help to create jobs for Americans in the most effective way a president can do this — with tax cuts that are directed specifically to create jobs, and protect your life savings.”

* * * * *

Wall Street

In the wake of the credit crisis, both candidates have stressed the need for greater transparency and imposing capital requirements on financial institutions.

Obama

Impose liquidity and capital requirements on investment banks.
Streamline regulatory framework of the financial services sector.
Create an oversight commission that would advise the president, Congress and regulators on the health of and risks facing financial markets.
Give Federal Reserve supervisory power over any bank that borrows from it.
“Let me be clear: the American economy does not stand still, and neither should the rules that govern it. The evolution of industries often warrants regulatory reform…”

McCain

Increase capital requirements on financial institutions.
Remove some of the regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.
Examine how banks and other firms value assets that exacerbated the credit crunch.
Increase transparency of complex financial instruments.
“Capital markets work best when there is both accountability and transparency. In the case of our current [credit] crisis, both were lacking.”

* * * * *

Mortgage Giant Rescue

Both candidates supported the federal government takeover of the mortgage insurance giants since they’re central to the housing market.

Obama

Wants to void any inappropriate windfall payments to outgoing CEOs and senior management.
Says shareholders should not benefit in takeover.
Had said companies should either operate as goverment agencies or as private businesses.
“I recognize that intervention is necessary to maintain liquidity for the housing market so that homeowners can continue to get affordable mortgages and homes can be bought and sold in neighborhoods across the country.”

McCain

Called for reform of corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago.
Wants to clarify and unify regulatory authority of financial institutions, including the mortgage insurers.
“These quasi-public corporations lead our housing system down a path where quick profit was placed before sound finance…And now, as ever, the American taxpayers are left to pay the price for Washington’s failure.

* * * * *

Mortgage Fraud

Both candidates say they want to go after predatory lenders. Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act in the Senate and now it’s a part of his platform. McCain called for creating a task force to investigate criminal wrongdoing in the mortgage lending and securitization industry.

Obama

Boost funding for law enforcement programs aimed at housing fraud by $40 million.
Establish new federal criminal penalties for mortgage professionals found guilty of fraud.
Require lending professionals to report suspicious or fraudulent activity.
Establish a database of censured or debarred mortgage professionals, so borrowers can easily check the credentials of lenders.
Establish a standardized estimate of the total annualized cost of a mortgage loan to make it easier for borrowers to compare different loans.
“We must establish stiff penalties to deter fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices.”

McCain

Create a Justice Department task force that punishes individuals or firms that defrauded innocent homeowners or forged loan application documents.
Task force would also assist state attorneys general investigating abusive lending practices.
Improve transparency in the lending process so that borrowers know exactly what they are agreeing to.
“Lenders who initiate loans should be held accountable for the quality and performance of those loans and strict standards should be required in the lending process.”

* * * * *

Jobs and Wages

McCain’s plan for turning around the economy focuses on corporate tax policy, while Obama would take a more activist role that includes increasing wages and spending on public works.

Obama

Fund federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate “green” technologies training.
Raise minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011 and tie future rises to inflation.
Double federal funding for basic research and make R&D tax credit permanent.
Set up $60 billion infrastructure investment bank to help fund public works. Also, create a $25 billion emergency Jobs and Growth Fund to fund other infrastructure projects.
Establish tax credit for companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the U.S.
Give a temporary tax credit of $3,000 in 2009 and 2010 to companies for each new full-time employee it hires in the United States.
Temporarily eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits.
Advocate for stronger unionization.
“We will provide incentives to businesses and consumers to save energy and make buildings more efficient. That’s how we’re going to create jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.”

McCain

Spur economy and job growth by cutting corporate tax rate and temporarily lowering current rates on dividends and capital gains.
Leave minimum wage at $7.25 an hour, which is where current law will take it to by 2009. Opposed to tying future hikes to inflation rate.
Create tax credit equal to 10% of wages spent on R&D.
Consolidate federal unemployment programs and reform training programs for job seekers.
Temporarily eliminate taxes on unemployment benefits.
“We will build a new system, using the unemployment-insurance taxes to build for each worker a buffer account against a sudden loss of income — so that in times of need they’re not just told to fill out forms and take a number.”

* * * * *

Savings

Obama wants the government to augment low- and middle-income workers’ savings. McCain would help retirees keep their savings.

Obama

Require employers that don’t offer retirement plans to set up IRA-type accounts.
Require companies to automatically enroll their employees in 401(k)s or IRAs.
Provide a federally funded match on retirement savings for families earning below $75,000.
Temporarily suspend mandatory withdrawals from retirements accounts for senior citizens age 70 1/2 and older.
“Personal saving is at an all-time low. A part of the American dream is at risk.”

McCain

Require companies to automatically enroll their employees in retirement plans they offer.
Encourage saving by keeping investment taxes low.
Temporarily suspend mandatory withdrawals from retirements accounts for senior citizens age 70 1/2 and older.
“As president, I intend to act quickly and decisively to promote growth and opportunity. I intend to keep the current low income and investment tax rates.”

* * * * *

Driving

Both candidates want to make every gallon count. Government prizes are pivotal to McCain’s plan, while Obama wants to place more stringent requirements on automakers.

Obama

Double fuel economy standards within 18 years while maintaining current flexibility.
Offer $7,000 tax credit to buyers of plug-in hybrids.
Mandate all new cars be flex-fuel capable.
Provide $4 billion in retooling credits and loans to help domestic manufacturers switch to more fuel-efficient cars.
Aim to get 1 million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on the roads within six years.
Support creation of more transit-friendly communities and level employer commuting assistance for driving and public transit.
“I have a plan to raise the fuel standards in our cars and trucks with technology we have on the shelf today — technology that will make sure we get more miles to the gallon.”

McCain

Raise penalties car companies pay for violating Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.
Offer $5,000 tax credit for every customer who buys a zero-emission car.
Speed introduction of “flex-fuel vehicles” that can run on ethanol blends and gasoline.
Remove or reduce tariffs on imported ethanol.
Award $300 million prize to the company that can produce a plug-in hybrid battery technology at 30% of current costs, allowing commercial development of plug-in hybrid cars.
“…Our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure. From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success.”

* * * * *

Gas Prices

The candidates agree that consumers need help with sky-high fuel bills, but they have different plans for offering relief.

Obama

Keep gas tax in place.
Keep ethanol tariff to protect domestic industry.
Tax oil profits and use the money to help fund $1,000 rebate checks for consumers hit by high energy costs.
Eliminate oil and gas loopholes.
“I realize that gimmicks like the gas tax holiday and offshore drilling might poll well these days. But I’m not running for president to do what polls well…”

McCain

Repeal the 54-cents-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol.
Eliminate a current tax break for oil companies, but lower corporate taxes across the board.
“The effect [of a gas tax holiday] will be an immediate economic stimulus — taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time a family, a farmer, or trucker stops to fill up.”

* * * * *

Fighting Foreclosure

Obama wants the government to step in to help homeowners facing foreclosure. McCain unveiled rescue plan in October debate.

Obama

Allow troubled homeowners to refinance to a loan insured by the Federal Housing Administration.
Require any financial institution participating in Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program to put a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures for homeowners “acting in good faith.”
Create a 10% tax credit for homeowners who do not itemize their taxes.
Create a $10 billion fund to help victims of predatory loans.
Create a separate $10 billion fund to help state and local governments maintain critical infrastructure.
Authorize bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage principal.
“…If the government can bail out investment banks on Wall Street, then we can extend a hand to folks who are struggling on Main Street.”

McCain

Buy bad mortgages and renegotiate loan terms based on current value of home. Convert failing mortgages into low-interest, FHA-insured loans.
Offer of financial assistance to borrowers contingent upon lending reform.
Provide more funding for community development groups so they can expand their home rescue efforts.
“The United States government will support the refinancing of distressed mortgages for homeowners and replace them with manageable mortgages.”

* * * * *

Personal Taxes

Both candidates favor keeping some or all of the Bush tax cuts in place. Wealthy taxpayers win out under McCain’s plan, while lower-income earners benefit more under Obama’s proposals.

Obama

Leave all tax cuts in place for everyone except couples making more than $250,000 and single filers making more than $200,000. Those high-income groups would see their top two income tax rates revert to 36% and 39.6% from 33% and 35% respectively.
Provide $1,000 tax cut for working couples making less than $250,000.
Introduce other tax breaks for lower and middle-income households.
“We shouldn’t be distorting our tax code to benefit a few powerful interests — we should be insisting that everyone pays their fair share, and when I’m president, they will.”

McCain

Make 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent for everyone.
Permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, the so-called “wealth tax” that threatens the middle class.
“I will…propose…a middle-class tax cut — a phase-out of the Alternative Minimum Tax to save more than 25 million middle-class families as much as $2,000 in a single year.”

* * * * *

Taxing Wealth

McCain would apply a lighter hand to taxes paid by the wealthy than would Obama, who wants to make the tax code more progressive.

Obama

Tax carried interest as ordinary income rather than as an investment gain, thereby subjecting it to much higher tax rates than 15%.
Freeze the exemption amount of estates free from the estate tax at $3.5 million — where it will be in 2009.
Freeze top estate tax rate at 45%.
Raise capital gains and dividend tax rates to 20% from 15% for couples making more than $250,000 and singles making more than $200,000.
“We’ve lost the balance between work and wealth. I will close the carried interest loophole, and adjust the top dividends and capital gains rate…”

McCain

Preserve the 15% tax rate on carried interest – the cut that private equity and hedge fund managers take when the funds they manage make a profit.
Increase the amount of money exempt from the estate tax to $5 million.
Reduce the top estate tax rate to 15% from 55% – where it otherwise will be in 2011 under current law.
Reduce long-term capital gains rate to 7.5% for 2009 and 2010. Keep short-term capital gains and dividend tax rates where they are.
Increase the amount of capital losses which can be used in tax years 2008 and 2009 to offset ordinary income from $3,000 to $15,000.
“Sharply raising taxes on investment is a step in the wrong direction for the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets.”

* * * * *

Taxing Business

McCain is generally considered to be more friendly to Corporate America than is Obama, who wants to increase some companies’ tax bite in a few ways.

Obama

Consider reducing the corporate tax rate in conjunction with closing corporate tax loopholes.
Make R&D credit permanent.
Impose windfall profits tax on oil and gas companies.
Exempt investors from the capital gains tax on their investments in small businesses and startups if they made their investment when a small company was valued below a certain threshold. That threshold has yet to be defined.
Make renewable production credit permanent.
Require companies to verify transactions that have benefits other than their tax benefits.
“…We can’t just focus on preserving existing industries. We have to be in the business of encouraging new ones — and that means science, research and technology.”

McCain

Reduce corporate tax rate to 25% from 35%.
Make R&D credit permanent, but change formula.
Repeal several oil company tax breaks.
Accelerate business expense deductions.
Broaden corporate base.
“Serious reform is needed to help American companies compete in international markets. I have proposed a reduction in the corporate tax rate from the second highest in the world to one on par with our trading partners.”

* * * * *

Small Business

While both candidates promise to help entrepreneurs with friendly tax policies, they differ sharply on how much of the tab for employees’ health insurance and other benefits they expect fledgling businesses to pick up.

Obama

Expand the SBA’s direct-lending Disaster Loan Program to extend loans to companies affected by the economic downturn and credit crunch.
Temporarily eliminate fees and increase the amount guaranteed by the government through the SBA’s 7(a) and 504 programs, which insure lenders against defaults on small business loans.
Extend the stimulus act’s Section 179 tax deduction, which increased the amount businesses can write off on their taxes for capital investments in new equipment, through 2009.
Exempt investors from the capital gains tax on their investments in small businesses and startups if they made their investment when a small company was valued below a certain threshold. That threshold has yet to be defined.
Offer a 50% refundable credit for employee health insurance premiums paid by the employer.
Freeze estate tax rate at 45% and increase exemption to $3.5 million.
“We’ll work, at every juncture, to remove bureaucratic barriers for small and startup businesses.”

McCain

Allow small businesses first-year expensing of new equipment and technology purchases.
Establish a permanent tax credit equal to 10% of what a business spends on wages for research and development.
Issue tax credits to allow individuals to purchase personal, portable health insurance that can move with them from job to job.
Reduce the corporate income tax rate to 25% from 35%.
Cut estate tax rate to 15% and increase exemption to $5 million.
“…I will pursue tax reform that supports the wage-earners and job creators who make this economy run, and help them to succeed in a global economy.”

* * * * *

Free Trade

Both McCain and Obama say they are in favor of free trade. McCain has been a stronger defender of free trade agreements, while Obama has been a more vocal critic.

Obama

Work to renegotiate NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico.
Opposes the free trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia.
Use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world.
Supports steep tariffs on imports from China if the Chinese keep their currency from rising.
Increase and expand assistance offered to workers who lose jobs due to trade and create flexible education accounts to help workers retrain.
“Allowing subsidized and unfairly traded products to flood our markets is not free trade and it’s not fair. We cannot let foreign regulatory policies exclude American products. We cannot let enforcement of existing trade agreements take a backseat to the negotiation of new ones.”

McCain

Back additional trade agreements and engage in multilateral, regional and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade.
Supports the free trade agreements negotiated with South Korea and Colombia which are now awaiting Senate approval.
Would not threaten to impose tariffs on Chinese imports here if China does not allow the value of its currency, the yuan, to rise against the dollar.
Improve efforts to provide retraining for those who lose their jobs due to imports.
“If I am elected president, this country will honor its international agreements, including NAFTA, and we will expect the same of others. And in a time of uncertainty for American workers, we will not undo the gains of years in trade agreements now awaiting final approval.”

* * * **

Energy Security

The candidates agree on the need to reduce dependence on foreign oil and cut greenhouse gases. Both support a carbon “cap-and-trade” system where companies either pay to pollute or invest in cleaner technology.

Obama

Work to reduce carbon emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Invest $150 billion in renewable energy over the next 10 years.
Allow limited amount of offshore drilling.
Require that 10% of nation’s energy comes from renewable sources by 2013.
Aim to reduce nation’s demand for electricity 15% by 2020.
“To bring about real change, we’re going to have to make long-term investments in clean energy and energy efficiency.”

McCain

Work to reduce carbon emissions 60% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Use mix of free market, government incentives and a lower corporate tax rate to foster renewable energy.
Lift ban on offshore drilling.
Commit $2 billion annually to advance clean coal technologies.
Construct 45 new reactors by 2030 as part of a push to expand nuclear power production.
“…When it comes to energy, what we really need is to produce more, use less, and find new sources of power.”

* * * * *

Health Care

McCain would rely most heavily on individuals and the free market to lower costs, while Obama would rely more on government and mandates to make coverage affordable.

Obama

Coverage would be mandatory for children.
Offer an income-based federal subsidy for people who don’t get insurance from an employer or qualify for government plans like Medicaid.
Create a national network of public and private plans for those without other access to insurance.
Require employers to either offer a plan, help pay for employee costs or pay into a national health care network.
“…We need to pass a plan that lowers every family’s premiums, and gives every uninsured American the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.”

McCain

Coverage would not be mandatory for anyone.
Change how health care subsidies are taxed.
Offer refundable tax credit for anyone who buys health insurance.
Create a federally subsidized state-administered program to offer coverage for low-income people.
“I’ve made it very clear that what I want is for families to make decisions about their health care, not government…”

* * * * *

Medicare

Rising health care costs are pushing Medicare toward an unsustainable long-term deficit nearly 5 times that of Social Security. Both candidates say their efforts to reduce health care costs will help stabilize Medicare. What few Medicare proposals they’ve made aren’t sufficient to address the shortfall, health care experts say.

Obama

Would let government negotiate for Part D drug prices.
Would increase use of generic drugs in Medicare.
Wants to close the coverage gap known as the “doughnut” hole in Part D for reimbursement of prescription drugs.
Favors eliminating subsidies paid to private Medicare Advantage plans.
Wants to legalize importation of some prescription drugs.
“As president, I will reduce costs in the Medicare program by enacting reforms to lower the price of prescription drugs, ending the subsidies for private insurers in the Medicare Advantage program and focusing resources on prevention and effective chronic disease management.”

McCain

Wants wealthy people who are enrolled in the Part D drug coverage program to pay more.
Wants to reform the payment system so health care providers don’t get paid when medical errors or mismanagement occurs.
Favors importing low-cost prescription drugs from Canada.
“People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett don’t need their prescriptions underwritten by taxpayers. Those who can afford to buy their own prescription drugs should be expected to do so.”

* * * * *

Social Security

To help shore up the system, McCain favors individual accounts and reducing benefit growth. Obama prefers to raise taxes.

Obama

Opposes individual investment accounts.
Against raising retirement age.
Favors increasing the amount that workers making $250,000 or more pay into the system. Considering plan to tax income over $250,000 at between 2% and 4% – half of which would be paid for by the employee and half by the employer.
“We will not privatize Social Security, we will not raise the retirement age, and we will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.”

McCain

Supplement Social Security benefits with individual investment accounts.
Prefers slowing the growth in benefits to raising taxes.
“…You have to go to the American people and say…we won’t raise your taxes. We need personal savings accounts, but we [have] got to fix this system.”

* * * * *

Bankruptcy

Obama wants to reform the bankruptcy process and has proposed changes to help those in financial distress. As a Senator, McCain voted in favor of legislation aimed at curbing the growing number of bankruptcy filings.

Obama

Fast-track bankruptcy process for military families.
Help seniors facing bankruptcy keep their home.
Put pension promises higher on list of debts a bankrupt employer must pay.
Amend bankruptcy laws to protect people trapped in predatory home loans.
“I fought against a bankruptcy reform bill in the Senate that did more to protect credit card companies and banks than to help working people. I’ll continue the fight for good bankruptcy laws as President.”

McCain

Backed 2005 legislation that imposed new costs on those seeking bankruptcy protection.
The law, which Obama opposed, passed the Senate with Democratic support in 2005.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

The runaway train and other musings …

October 31, 2008

Some things to think about ….

* * * * *

“Whoever is elected Tuesday, his freedom in office will be limited. Mr. Obama is out of money and Mr. McCain is out of army, so what might be assumed to be the worst impulses of each — big spender, big scrapper — will be circumscribed by reality.”

“For Mr. Obama, whose mind tends, as intellectuals’ minds do, toward the abstract, it all seems so . . . abstract. And cold. And rather suggestive of radical departures.”

From WSJ,  Obama and the Runaway Train, Oct. 31, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122539802263585317.html

* * * * *

“Bush’s failure should not be counted as a failure of markets or capitalism. And even if it were, history shows us that the failures of capitalism are a lot more fun than the absence of capitalism.”

“You know, once upon a time, the stated purpose of taxation was to fund public needs — such as schools and roads — assist those who could not help themselves, defend our security and freedom, and yes, occasionally offer bailouts to sleazy fat cats.

Obama is the first major presidential candidate in memory to assert that taxation’s principal purpose should be redistribution.

The proposition that government should take one group’s lawfully earned profits and hand them to another group — not a collection of destitute or impaired Americans, mind you, but a still-vibrant middle class — is the foundational premise of Obama’s fiscal policy.”

From “If It Redistributes Like a Duck…”, David Harsanyi,
October 31, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/if_it_redistributes_like_a_duc.html

* * * * *

“McCain wants to free up health insurance by beginning to sever its debilitating connection to employment — a ruinous accident of history (arising from World War II wage and price controls) that increases the terror of job loss, inhibits labor mobility and saddles American industry with costs that are driving it (see: Detroit) into insolvency.”

From McCain for President, Part II, Charles Krauthammer, October 31, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/neither_candidate_an_economic.html

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

* * * * *

Is that a bullseye on the back of investors ?

October 31, 2008

Excerpted from US News & World Report, Why Democrats Will Target the Investor Class in 2009, James Pethokoukis, October 30, 2008

* * * * *
There are at least two pretty effective ways to turn someone into a Republican: (1) get them married with kids and (2) get them to invest in the stock market.

That’s why (there) may well bring a concerted and all-out effort by the Obama administration and a Democratically dominated Congress to turn the generally pro-Republican Investor Class into an endangered class by, among other tactics, raising investment taxes and ending the tax preferences for 401(k)’s, IRAs, and other retirement accounts.

Here is the emerging battle plan for Operation Investor Class Rollback:

1) Hike Investment Taxes. Obama wants to raise capital gains taxes even though he has kinda, sorta admitted that it might be bad for the economy and might actually decrease tax revenue to the government. For now, he’s talking about raising the highest cap gains rate by one third to 20 percent, though earlier in the campaign, he floated pushing it as high as 28 percent, a near doubling. With the next administration facing a trillion dollar budget deficit—maybe more—there will certainly be pressure to raise taxes to higher levels than now being suggested.

2) Eliminate 401(k)’s, IRAs, and other retirement plans. Democrats in the House are now talking openly about the longtime liberal dream of repealing the tax advantages of putting money into a 401(k) plan or other tax-advantaged retirement account.  In place of 401(k) plans, they would have workers transfer their dough into government-created “guaranteed retirement accounts” with a 3 percent real return.

Not only would removing the preferential tax treatment of these vehicles raise investment taxes by $100 billion a year and affect Americans making less than $100,000, it would surely prompt many Americans, already shell-shocked by the market’s recent losses, to flee stocks. All this ignores the fact that there are trillions of dollars in American retirement accounts, and abandoning the higher-returning stock market at a probable bottom is classic financial foolishness.

3) Replace private capital with public capital. But wouldn’t a weak stock market hurt the economy by making it tougher to raise investment capital and lessen the return on risk? Surely, it would. But Obama is planning hundreds of billions of dollars of government “investment” in cutting-edge technology, particularly in the energy and healthcare sectors.  Now, the private VC industry is already pouring billions into alternative energy, but Obama thinks that’s not enough and wants Uncle Sam to get in on the action at taxpayer expense.

* * * * *

Bottom line: All this makes smart political sense for Democrats. See, since the mid-1960s, stock ownership in the United States has risen from 10 percent of households to around 50 percent. And that growing Investor Class, a term coined and popularized by CNBC commentator and host Lawrence Kudlow, has helped nudge America evermore to the right.

But now if the Democrats control both the White House and Capitol Hill, look for them to move hard in the other direction, from an Ownership Society to a Government Owns It Society that would perhaps nudge America back to the left.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/30/why-democrats-will-target-the-investor-class-in-2009.html?s_cid=rss:capital-commerce:why-democrats-will-target-the-investor-class-in-2009

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

What happens when you tax the Dolphins ?

October 30, 2008

Excerpted from WSJ: Taxing the Dolphins, Oct.30, 2008

* * * * *  
Don’t think tax rates matter to business decisions?

In July, the Rooney family’s mused about selling part of the Pittsburgh Steelers to avoid the 45% death tax rate.

H. Wayne Huizenga, the owner of the Miami Dolphins, declared earlier this week that he intends to sell up to half his ownership in the NFL franchise before next year. Why? Because as he told a Florida newspaper, Barack Obama “wants to (almost) double the capital gains tax … I’d rather give (the money) to charity.”Obama is in fact proposing to raise the capital gains tax to 20% from 15% — which would be an increase of 33%, but Mr. Huizenga is close enough for IRS work.

* * * * *
We saw a similar tax effect in 1992 when Bill Clinton raised tax rates. The Wall Street crowd accelerated income, bonuses and stock sales to pay the 31% rate, not the expected higher rate. One of those who cashed out in 1992 was Robert Rubin, who would soon join the Clinton Administration.

* * * * *
One economist who observed this tax avoidance was Austan Goolsbee, of the University of Chicago, who is now a top Barack Obama adviser.

In a 1999 paper, “What Happens When You Tax the Rich?,” Mr. Goolsbee wrote that “the higher marginal rates of 1993 led to a significant decline in taxable income.” Many of the superrich were able to change the timing of compensation to avoid paying the higher rates. Mr. Goolsbee concluded this “short term shift” … cost the Treasury revenue it had been anticipating.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533091992582863.html

* * * * *

Ken’s Take: It may be “noise” in the system or a reflection of the crowd I’m exposed to, but I hear more and more folks talking about taking capital gains this year, deferring tax deductions until next year, and moving money to tax-free accounts — onshore and offshore.  This behavior — in aggregate —  is going to  be a big deal.  Watch it.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Encore – So, is the U.S. tax system regressive or progressive?

October 30, 2008

Last night, I heard a group of pundits claiming that the US tax system is regressive when payroll taxes (for Medicare and Social Security) are considered.  Huh?

This encore was originally posted on Aug.3, 2008.

* * * * *

OK, I’m officially confused. Is the current U.S. tax system “regressive” – the more you make, the lower your effective rate – or is it  “progressive” – the more you make, the higher your effective rate. 

The politicos and pundits – even the smart ones – seem split on the question.  So, which is it?

* * * * *

Summary

Practically everyone agrees that the U.S. federal income tax structure is progressive (i.e. high earners pay a higher tax rate).  But, the Reagan and Bush tax code changes did make it less progressive than it was in the 1960s; there are some isolated anomalies ( e.g. Warren Buffett and his secretary); and it may be less progressive than some folks want.

The estate tax (a.k.a, “death tax”) is – by definition —  progressive since only the wealthiest 1% of folks who die pay it.

  • Note: there’s a difference between “income” and “wealth” – while high income usually correlates with high wealth, income is a “flow” variable and wealth is a “stock”.

So, any dispute must arise from so-called  “payroll taxes” – the paycheck deductions that fund Social Security and Medicare. 

There is a single rate for Medicare (1.45%) that is applied to all wages; and.there is a single rate for Social Security(6.2%) that is applied to at most $102,000 in wages.  Employers match their employees’ contributions dollar-for-dollar.

  • Note: most economists argue that, in the final analysis, employees bear the full burden of their employer’s matching amounts since employers most likelycover the tax by reducing wages.

Since the same rates are applied to all taxpayers , and since Social Security’s“base earnings” are capped at  $102,000, then payroll taxes are regressive with respect to current earnings.  But – as I’ll demonstrate is future analytical posts – Medicare benefits are the same, regardless of how much a taxpayer contributes (and high earners contribute more than low earners); and Social Security benefits are “coupled” to earnings via a very progressive formula – i.e. high-earners get disproportionately less in benefits.  So, taking into account the benefits received as well as the contributions made, both programs are very progressive.

The bottom line: all of the components are progressive:  federal income taxes, estate taxes, payroll taxes.  So, it logically follows that the combined program is progressive.

In this post, I’ll set-up the issue and provide some references.  In subsequent posts, I’ll provide some numbers and analysis that support the above conclusions..

* * * * *

The Details

The question: Is the current U.S. tax system “regressive” – the more you make, the lower your effective tax rate – or is it  “progressive” – the more you make, the higher your effective tax rate.

Let’s look at the pieces that make up the U.S. tax system..

There’s the estate tax (a.k.a. “death tax”).  It’s clearly progressive since only the richest 1% of folks who die pay it.  As the exclusion levels increase under the Bush plan, fewer dead people have to pay it – making it even more progressive.  When it gets eliminated entirely in 2010, it stops being progressive, but it doesn’t start being regressive.  It just stops.

The estate tax in small potatoes in the overall  tax mix.  The big behemoth is the federalincome tax.  The aggregate statistics  (i.e. looking at the broad population , and not just Warren Buffett and his secretary) are – in my opinion – incontrovertible.  Higher income folks – say the top 50% — pay a higher effective income tax rate and shoulder over 97%l of the federal income tax burden. The federal income tax is progressive.  Period..

Why then, do many really smart, well-intended people say the tax system is regressive and that high earners aren’t paying their fair share?

  • Note: though some people use the terms interchangeably, “regressive” and “fair share” are not synonymous.

First, what some of them are really saying is that the income tax code isn’t as progressive as it used to be (true, but so what?),  or that it isn’t as progressive as the tax code in other countries, say France (true, but — for sure — so what?),  or that it’s not progressive enough based on higher order socio-ethical criteria (very important, but also, quite debatable).

A more structural argument posed by many people is that so-called “payroll taxes” that fund Social Security and Medicare are regressive and tilt the balance of the tax system..

* * * * *

For example, Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor says:

The fact that “84.6% of all federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners, and over a third are paid by the top 1%, advances a specious argument.

Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes … payroll taxes take a much bigger portion of the paychecks of lower-income Americans than of higher-income.

Viewed as a whole, the current tax system is quite regressive.”

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/robert-reichs-p.html

* * * * *

OK, so parsing Reich’s argument, if the overall system is regressive, and if major parts of the system —  income and estate taxes are progressive – then it logically follow that payroll taxes are both substantial (especially to low-earners) and very regressive.  The culprit is payroll taxes.

* * * * *

The Tax Policy Center  a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution and self-proclaimed non-partisan organization   – explains:

Taken as a whole, the federal tax system is progressive: on average, households with higher incomes pay a larger share of their income in federal tax than do those with lower incomes. In other words, the overall average effective tax rate-total tax paid as a percentage of income-rises as income rises.

But not all taxes within the federal system are equally progressive. The estate tax is the most progressive federal tax. The individual (and corporate) income taxes are also progressive. In contrast, payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare are regressive, claiming a larger share of income from lower-income than from higher-income households.

For 2008 average effective payroll tax rates are estimated at 8.4 percent for the bottom fifth of income earners, and 10.4 percent for the next fifth, but only 5.7 percent for the top fifth. Households in the top 1 percent will pay an estimated average of only 1.5 percent of their income in payroll taxes.

This regressivity of payroll taxes stems from two factors. First, the Social Security portion of payroll taxes is subject to a cap: in 2008, individuals pay Social Security tax on only their first $102,000 in earnings. Second, higher-income households tend to receive more of their income from sources other than wages, such as capital gains and dividends, which are not subject to the payroll tax.”

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/distribution/progressive-taxes.cfm

* * * * *

The underlying logic of the regressive claim is simple. Take Social Security: A worker gets docked 6.2% on wages up to $102,000.  The rate drops to zero for any wages over $102,000.  So, somebody earning $50,000 has $3,100 deducted from their paycheck [6.2% times $50,000];  somebody earning $102,000 has $6,324 deducted —  a greater amount, but the same 6.2%;  somebody earning $200,000 has $6,324 deducted — the same as the worker earning $102,000, but representing a lower effective rate (3.2%).  The more that somebody earns over the $102,000 maximum, the lower the effective rate. By definition, that’s a regressive tax since the rate declines as income gets higher.  Case closed. Right?

Not so fast.

* * * * *

The Urban Institute gets to the real core of the question:

The payroll tax is very regressive with respect to current income: The average tax rate falls as income rises …  (But) the regressivity of the payroll tax is mitigated to a substantial extent when Social Security and Medicare benefits are considered as well..

http://www.urban.org/publications/1001065.html

* * * * *

In other words, the single payroll tax rate and the cap on taxable earnings combine to make payroll taxes appear regressive when analyzed solely based on current payroll deductions but, the benefits the taxes buy (retirement income and health insurance) are so progressive – i.e. highearners get muchlowerbenefitsperdollarthanlowearners — .that the net effect on tax payers is progressive – very progressive.

* * * * *

A Congressional Joint Economic Committee states the case more directly:

The rapid growth in payroll taxes over the past 40 years has imposed a large burden on working Americans. This burden has fallen disproportionately on low-income workers. However, in the context of a comprehensive tax policy, it is misleading to focus on the short-term burden imposed by payroll taxes without accounting for the future benefits (since) the progressivity of the benefit formulae outweigh the disproportionate burden imposed by the taxes.

As a result, low-wage workers can expect to receive benefits that exceed the sum of their and their employers’ payroll tax contributions. Middle- and high-wage workers, on the other hand, can expect to pay substantially more into the system than they will receive in benefits.

Overall, middle- and high-wage workers subsidize the income and payroll tax liabilities of low-wage workers, leaving most low-wage workers with net negative tax liabilities throughout their lifetimes.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/payroll/payroll.htm

* * * * *

>>> Read more

Encore – Those %#@! Bush Tax Cuts

October 29, 2008

Note: This brief was originally posted July 23, 2008.  Yesterday, Sen. Biden said “Bush’s tax cuts didn’t help the middle class at all.”  Huh?  Sorry, Joe — there were plenty of goodies in there for everybody.  Read on …

* * * * *

Summary: We’ve all heard the  rants about the cuts in the top bracket rate, capital gains rate, dividend taxes, and estate taxes.

But, when was the last time that your heard a candidate (on either side) or a pundit (O’Reilly included) mention the new 10% bracket, larger and refundable child and earned income credits, negative income taxes, elimination of the marriage tax penalty, or expanded college benefits?

* * * * *

The income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are shorthanded by the press and political candidates as “Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy — who didn’t even want them”, and are blamed for an accelerating polarization of wealth distribution (i.e. rich get richer, poor stay poor).

Warren Buffet says his secretary pays more taxes than he does (really?). McCain says he’ll stay the course. Obama says that he’ll roll back the tax cuts if he’s elected and redistribute them to the “folks who need them the most”.

All of the rhetoric got me thinking.  Somewhat embarrassed, I realized Ihat I didn’t know exactly what was in the Bush tax plan.  (Quick Test: take out a sheet of paper and jot down the tax breaks enacted as part of the Bush plan)

Prompted by curiosity (and a modicum of selfish interest) I did some digging.  Here’s what I found, along with my “take”:

The top marginal income tax rate  was cut from 39.5% to 35% (applied to Adjusted Gross Income >$350,000)
– the 36% marginal rate was cut to 33%  (TI > $161,000)
– the 31% marginal rate was cut to 28%  (TI> $77,000)
– the 28% marginal rate was cut to 25%  (TI > $32,000) 
…  a clear benefit to the top half of income earners; with the biggest benefit to the highest earners

Capital gains and dividend tax rates were reduced to 15% for high-earners, zero for low earners … more of a benefit to high-earners, but 1/3 of households own stock and more than 1/4 of returns (including many retirees) report dividend income … turned out to be a windfall for hedge funds and private equity via the “carried interest” loophole (more on that in a subsequent post)

A low-income 10% tax rate bracket was introduced … benefit to many low-earners previously in the 15% bracket

Child Care Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit were increased and made refundable … resulting in zero or negative tax due balances for millions of people (note: “refundable” means that any negative tax due is paid to the citizen — a very important policy shift)

Income limits were eliminated on personal exemptions and itemized deductions … the former helps low earners most — since it’s a higher proportion of income; the latter benefits higher earners most — since they are the ones who itemize deductions. (Note: roughly 2/3’s of tax filers take the standard deduction)

Marriage penalty was neutralized … benefits middle-earning couples most

College education benefits were liberalized, e.g. 529 plans, student loan interest deduction, tax-free employer paid tuition … benefits mid- and high-earners most (since their family members disproportionately attend college)

Estate taxes were reduced and to be phased out… only impacts wealthy folks with estates that are big enough to be subject to “death taxes”

                          

* * * * *

Details re: “Bush Tax Plan” – 2001 and 2003

Officially, the first round of Bush tax cuts were codified in the “Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001” which was approved by the Congressional conference committee on May 25, 2001; signed into law shortly thereafter; but phased in over a several year period.  The key provisions of the law (as reported in the conference committee’s report):
 
Introduce a 10-percent rate bracket… reducing the rate from 15% to 10% for the first $6,000 of taxable income for single individuals ($7,000 for 2008 and thereafter), $10,000 of taxable income for heads of households, and $12,000 for married couples filing joint returns ($14,000 for 2008 and thereafter).

Reduce individual income tax rates  … from 28 percent, 31percent, 36 percent, and 39.6 percent are phased-down over six years to 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, and 35 percent, effective after June 30, 2001.

click table to make it bigger

Phase-out of Itemized Deductions and Restrictions on Personal Exemptions … by eliminating all limitation on itemized deductions and any restrictions on personal exemptions for all taxpayers by one-third in taxable years beginning in 2006 and 2007, and by two-thirds in taxable years beginning in 2008 and 2009, and by 100% for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.

Increase and Expand the Child Tax Credit… Increasing the child tax credit to $1,000, phased-in over ten years. and by making the child credit — subject to certain income limitations — non-taxable and refundable (i.e. payable to the person if the net tax liability is zero),

Provide relief from the “marriage penalty” … by increasing the basic standard deduction for a married couple filing a joint return; by increasing the size of the 15-percent regular income tax rate bracket for a married couple filing a joint return to twice the size of the corresponding rate bracket for an unmarried individual filing a single return.; and by increasing limits on the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Provide Education Benefits… by increasing the annual limit on contributions to education IRAs to $2,000; by expanding the reach of 529 tuition programs; by extending the non-taxibility of employer paid tuition; and by raising income phase out levels for deductability of student loan interest.

Phase-out and Repeal of Estate and Generation-Skipping Transfer Taxes:

click table to make it bigger

* * * * *

In 2003, a second round of tax changes was enacted in the “JOBS AND GROWTH TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2003” which:

Accelerated the phase in of the 10% bracket, the reduction in other bracket rates, the child care tax credit, and marriage penalty relief.

Provide reductions in taxes on capital gains and dividends … reducing the 10- and 20-percent rates on capital gains on assets held more than one year to five ( zero, in 2008 ) and 15 percent, respectively. and providing that dividends received by an individual shareholder from domestic and qualified foreign corporations generally are taxed at the same rates that apply to capital gains.

* * * * *

Source Reports
http://www.jct.gov/x-50-01.pdf
http://www.house.gov/jct//x-54-03.pdf

 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog

This administration and Congress will be remembered like Herbert Hoover …

October 29, 2008

So says Art Laffer (of Laffer Curve fame) in the  WSJ: The Age of Prosperity Is Over , Art Laffer, Oct.27, 2008.

Here are some snippets.  Full article (link below)  is worth browsing.

* * * * *
Financial panics, if left alone, rarely cause much damage to the real economy, output, employment or production. Asset values fall sharply and wipe out those who borrowed and lent too much, thereby redistributing wealth from the foolish to the prudent.

* * * * *

When markets are free, asset values are supposed to go up and down, and competition opens up opportunities for profits and losses. Profits and stock appreciation are not rights, but rewards for insight mixed with a willingness to take risk. People who buy homes and the banks who give them mortgages are no different, in principle, than investors in the stock market, commodity speculators or shop owners. Good decisions should be rewarded and bad decisions should be punished. The market does just that with its profits and losses.

* * * * *
Taxpayers had nothing to do with either side of (toxic) mortgage transactions. If the house’s value had appreciated, believe you me the overleveraged homeowner and the overly aggressive bank would never have shared their gain with taxpayers.

* * * * *

Housing price declines and their consequences are signals to the market to stop building so many houses, pure and simple.

* * * * *
The government doesn’t create anything; it just redistributes. Whenever the government bails someone out of trouble, they always put someone into trouble, plus of course a toll for the troll. Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved.

* * * * *
Some 14 months ago, the projected deficit for the 2008 fiscal year was about 0.6% of GDP. With the $170 billion stimulus package last March, the add-ons to housing and agriculture bills, and the slowdown in tax receipts, the deficit for 2008 actually came in at 3.2% of GDP, with the 2009 deficit projected at 3.8% of GDP.

* * * * *

The net national debt in 2001 was at a 20-year low of about 35% of GDP, and today it stands at 50% of GDP.

* * * * *
Giving more money to people when they fail and taking more money away from people when they work doesn’t increase work.

* * * * *
An improving economy carries with it the prospects of enhanced profitability as well as higher employment, higher wages, more productivity and more output.

Just look at the era beginning with President Reagan’s tax cuts, Paul Volcker’s sound money, and all the other pro-growth, supply-side policies.

Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan added their efforts to strengthen what had begun under President Reagan. President Clinton signed into law welfare reform, so people actually have to look for a job before being eligible for welfare. He ended the “retirement test” for Social Security benefits (a huge tax cut for elderly workers), pushed the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress against his union supporters and many of his own party members, signed the largest capital gains tax cut ever (which exempted owner-occupied homes from capital gains taxes), and finally reduced government spending as a share of GDP by an amazing three percentage points (more than the next four best presidents combined).

* * * * *

Whenever people make decisions when they are panicked, the consequences are rarely pretty.

For example, Jimmy Carter’s emergency energy plan, included wellhead price controls, excess profits taxes on oil companies, and gasoline price controls at the pump. The consequences of these actions were disastrous. Just look at the stock market from the post-Kennedy high in early 1966 to the pre-Reagan low in August of 1982. The average annual real return for U.S. assets compounded annually was -6% per year for 16 years. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a bear market.

* * * * *
Full article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506830024970697.html 

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Again: Dogbert for President !

October 29, 2008

Dogbert’s tax plan … sound familiar ?

>> Current Posts

Steps towards bipartisanship … Dancin’ with the stars ?

October 28, 2008

A picture is worth a thousand words …

image
Thanks to MKH for the heads-up

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
Click link =>
  The Homa Files Blog

Reprise: Under Obama, Tax Payers Will be a Minority !

October 28, 2008


Note: This analysis was originally posted on July 31, 2008.  It’s the post that has gotten the most hits, and the topic is ‘hot’ this week on the talk shows.  So, here’s a flashback .
..

* * * * *

Despite the drumbeat of warnings from various sources, the prospects that a minority of voting age Americans will be paying Federal income taxes under the Obama tax plan doesn’t seem to arouse much visible public anxiety.

 

Why?

 

First, for those in the emerging majority that won’t pay any income taxes – or may even be getting government checks for tax credits due – the deal is almost too good to be true.  To them, Obama’s  plan must make perfect sense.  So, why rock the boat? 

 

Second, some people argue that low-earning people who don’t pay income taxes shoulder a regressive payroll tax burden to cover Medicare and Social Security.  Yeah, but these programs – which are most akin to insurance or forced savings plans — offer specific individual benefits that are directly linked to each wage earner’s contributions.and the benefits phase down quickly as qualifying income increases.  That is, they’re not as regressive as many people argue. 

 

Third, most of the energetic criticism of Obama’s plan has centered on its redistribution intent — taking over $130 billion of “excess” income from undeserving rich people, and giving it directly to those who earn less and need it more. 

Fourth, most folks just don’t believe that the numbers will really shift enough to create a voting majority of citizens who don’t pay income taxes. They’re wrong.  Very wrong.

 

Here are the numbers … and why they should bother you.

 

* * * * *

Today, 41% of voting age adults don’t pay Federal income taxes

Based on the most recent IRS data, slightly more than 200 million out of 225 million voting age Americans filed tax returns.  That means that 25 million adults – presumably low income ones – didn’t file returns and, of course, didn’t pay any income taxes. See notes [1] to [4] below

Of the 200 million voting age filers, approximately 68 million (33% of total filers) owed zero income taxes or qualified for refundable tax credits (i.e. paid negative income taxes). [5]

Add those 68 million to the 25 million non-filers, and non-payers already total 93 million –  41% of voting age adults.

* * * * *

Obama’s Estimates – Make that 49%
Not Paying Federal Income Taxes

Obama says (on his web site) that he will give tax credits up of $1,000 per family ($500 per individual) that will  “completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans”.  And, he says that he will “eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors making less than $50,000 per year.”  [6]

Taking Obama’s estimates at face value,  the incremental 17 million that he intends to take off the income tax rolls will push  the percentage of non-payers close to 49% of voting age Americans  — within rounding distance to a majority. [7]

* * * * *

And, Obama’s estimates are probably low,
so make the number 55% (or higher)
 

Since Obama’s basic proposal is for tax credits  ($500 per person or $1,000 per family) – not  simply deductions from Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) — they will have a multiplier impact on the amount of AGI that tax filers can report and still owe no taxes.

For example, a childless married couple that files a joint return can currently report about $17,500 in  Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and owe no income taxes. [8]

Under the Obama Plan,  that couple’s zero-tax AGI is bumped up to $27,500 since their new $1,000 tax credit covers the 10% tax liability on an additional $10,000 of AGI.  And, married couples filing jointly can keep adding about $10,000 to their zero-tax AGI for each qualifying dependent child that they claim. [9]

click table to make it bigger

click table to make it bigger

Based on the 2006 IRS data, approximately 25 million tax returns were filed that reported AGI less than  $27,500 (the post-Obama zero-tax AGI) and required that some income taxes be paid.  [10]

Assuming that 45% of those were for couples filing jointly, they represent  over 22 million adults.  For sure, these 22 million will  come off the tax rolls —  and they alone will be enough to create a non-taxpayer majority (51% of voting age adults),

click to make table bigger

And, there are more folks being pushed off the tax rolls.  About 4.7 million childless individuals earn less than $13,750  (the post-Obama zero-tax AGI for childless individuals), and currently pay some Federal income taxes.   This group will shift  to non-payer status.

So would several million joint filers who can take advantage of the Child Tax Credit to report more than $27,500 and not pay Federal income taxes.

And, some portion of the 7 million Seniors that Obama says will have their taxes eliminated — that is the Seniors couples earning more than $27,500 (but less than $50,000) — and Senior individuals earning more than $13,750 (but less than $50,000).

So, post-Obama, the percentage of non-taxpayers will  easily exceed 55% of voting age adults — a solid majority.  It won’t even be close.

* * * * *

The Bottom Line – Why You Should Worry

An income tax paying minority of voting age adults isn’t just a possibility. Under Obama’s plan, it’s a virtual certainty.  Based on the hard numbers, Obama’s plan will create a new majority — a powerful voting block: non-tax payers. UH-OH.

Again, for those in the emerging majority that won’t pay any income taxes – or may even be getting government checks for tax credits due – the deal is almost too good to be true.  To them, Obama’s  plan must make perfect sense.  Count on their perpetual support for the plan.

But for those in the new minority, watch out if the new majority decides that more government services are needed, or that  $131 billion in income redistribution isn’t enough to balance the scales.

The Tax Foundation — a nonpartisan tax research group – has repeatedly warned that  “While some may applaud the fact that millions of low- and middle-income families pay no income taxes, there is a threat to the fabric of our democracy when so many Americans are not only disconnected from the costs of government but are net consumers of government benefits. The conditions are ripe for social conflict if these voters begin to demand more government benefits because they know others will bear the costs.”  http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1111.html

* * * *  *

Sources & Notes

[1] The Census Bureau reported 217.8 million people age 18 and over; as of July 1, 2003.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001703.html 
http://www.census.gov/popest/national/files/NST-EST2007-alldata.csv

[2] The IRS reported 138.4 million personal tax returns filed in 2006.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in11si.xls

[3] The IRS reported that in 2006, approximately 45% of filed returns were by married couples filing jointly (i.e. 2 adults per return); 55% for individual filers (including ‘married filing separately’ and ‘head of household’).  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in36tr.xls

[4] Calculation: 138.4 million returns times 1.45 (adults per return) equals 200.7 million adults represented on filed returns

[5]  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06in01fg.xls      http://ftp.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/06inplim.pdf

[6]  http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief

[7]  Analytical note: 93 million plus 17 million equals 110 million divided by 225 million equals 49%.

[8]  Analytical note:  $17,500 less a $10,700 standard deduction, less 2 exemptions at $3,400 each, equals taxable income of zero – so no federal income taxes are due.

[9] Analytical note:  $27,500 less a $10,700 standard deduction, less 2 exemptions at $3,400 each, equals taxable income of $10,000, which at a 10% rate is a $1,000 tax liability that gets offset by the $1,000 Obama credit, reducing the tax liability to zero.

* * * * *

Want more from the Homa Files?
 
Click link =>  The Homa Files Blog