---
Should be interesting:
APRIL 18
SIRC TRUE PERSPECTIVES
OBAMACARE
Impact on hospitals – now and in the future
TARRY HODGES
Director of Government Relations
St. Joseph’s/Candler Health System
How will the Affordable Health Care Act
affect hospital services?
Your options -
Your costs -
Ms. Hodges has the experience and background
to give us the answers
April 18, 5:00 PM - Plantation
$5 Members - $10 Non-members – All welcome
RSVP Jack Kaster 598-7714 or kasjac@bellsouth.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheels coming off the chariot? (See 1 below.)
---
---
Article by daughter of good friend and fellow memo reader. (See 2 below.)
---
Sort of my own sentiments. The sluggish recovery, far too much ineffective stimulus and uncertainty are laying the foundation for another possible downturn. Add to this volatile mixture the European recession and the downturn in China's growth and you have the making of some strong headwinds. (See 3 below.)
---
From a friend and fellow memo reader responding to a previous memo posting: "That "Meet the Press" Obama clip MUST!! become a Romney ad. Why is he not taking advantage of the truth, on tape, undeniable?"
My own retort was: "Romney is personally too conservative and not conservative enough as to his core philosophy."
---
Obama faces an intractable Iran, N Korea, and an economy in malaise, high unemployment, rising debt and gas prices and a variety of other problems- some inherited some self-made.. He has a failed record to run on so he must focus on other matters and/or create other diversions. In view of the above he seems to have modeled his campaign based on women's issues and around female private parts and the play entitled: 'The Vagina Monologue."
This would be mordantly humorous if we were not facing such serious problems. Problems that will shape our destiny if unsolved.
As I have often said, if women preponderantly choose to vote for Obama they will have proved my long held view of their anatomical problem. (See 4 below.)
---
A tongue and cheek welcome to activists from Israel: "The Israeli government issued an official "welcome" letter to the
pro-Palestinian "flytilla" activists who planned on arriving in the country
on Saturday and Sunday. It reads as follows: "Dear Activists, We appreciate
your choosing to make Israel the object of your humanitarian concerns. We
know there were many other worthy choices. You could have chosen to protest
the Syrian regime's daily savagery against its own people, which has claimed
thousands of lives. You could have chosen to protest the Iranian regime's
brutal crackdown on dissent and its support of terrorism throughout the
world. You could have chosen to protest Hamas rule in Gaza, where terror
organizations commit a double war crime by firing rockets at civilians and
hiding behind civilians. But instead, you chose to protest against Israel,
the Middle East's sole democracy, where women are equal, the press
criticizes the government, human rights organizations can operate freely,
religious freedom is protected for all - and minorities do not live in fear.
Therefore, we suggest you solve the real problems of the region first, and
then come back and share your experiences with us. Have a nice flight."
(INN)"
---
I will end this memo on this historical note: "
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Egyptian presidential hopefuls barred from race
By MAGGIE MICHAEL | Associated Press
Egypt's election commission disqualified 10 presidential hopefuls, including Hosni Mubarak's former spy chief and key Islamists, from running Saturday in a surprise decision that threatened to upend an already tumultuous race and plunge the Arab world's most populous nation into a new political crisis.
Farouk Sultan, the head of the Supreme Presidential Election Commission that was appointed by Egypt's military rulers to oversee the vote, said that those barred from the race Mubarak-era strongman Omar Suleiman, Muslim Brotherhood chief strategist Khairat el-Shater and hard-line lawyer-turned-preacher Hazem Abu Ismail. He didn't give a reason.
The announcement came as a shock to many Egyptians as three of the 10 excluded were considered among the front-runners in a highly polarized campaign that has left the nation divided into two strong camps: Islamists and former regime insiders who are allegedly supported by the ruling generals.
If upheld, the decision would reshape the electoral landscape by removing the most powerful and controversial candidates and leaving a field of moderates.
Disqualified candidates have 48 hours to appeal the decision, according to election rules. The final list of candidates will be announced on April 26. Thirteen others had their candidacy approved, including former Arab League chief Amr Moussa, moderate Islamist Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh and former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, according to Sultan.
A spokesman for el-Shater's campaign, Murad Mohammed Ali, called the decision "very dangerous" and said it gives a message that "there was no revolution in Egypt." Officials with all the campaigns vowed to appeal.
The struggle for power more than a year after Mubarak was ousted in a popular uprising has heated up with the approach of next month's presidential vote, in which Islamist hopes of capturing Egypt's highest post was recently challenged by the emergence of Mubarak's vice president Suleiman onto the political scene after a long disappearance from public view.
The Muslim Brotherhood, along with hard-line ultraconservative Salafis, captured more than 70 percent of the parliament seats in the first post-revolution elections.
Liberal and secular revolutionaries who spearheaded the mass protests that led to Mubarak's ouster have largely been sidelined.
The presidential election is due on May 23-24, with a possible runoff on June 16-17. The winner will be announced on June 21, less than two weeks before the July 1 deadline promised by the military rulers who took over after Mubarak to hand over power.
Saturday's announcement was the latest twist
The Muslim Brotherhood announced on March 31 that el-Shater would run for president, reversing an earlier pledge not to seek the office. The move came after weeks of complaints by the Brotherhood that the parliament they control is toothless and that the ruling military was blocking it from wielding power from parliament and preventing it from forming a government.
In what was seen as a countermove backed by the generals, Suleiman made an unexpected announcement a week later that he was entering the race for the presidential elections. Suleiman said he had decided to run to block Islamist rule and provide stability after more than a year of turmoil.
A judge close to the commission, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to disclose the information, said that Suleiman has not presented the proper number of endorsements. Each candidate needed at least 30,000 endorsements, including at least 1,000 from each of the country's 15 provinces, to join the race.
His campaign spokeswoman Reem Mamdouh said in an interview with the local CBC television network that they had not been officially notified about the decisions but would definite appeal.
"Suleiman will never withdraw and let down the hopes of the large constituency of Egyptians who supported him. This is not happening," she said.
Many observers also had been looking to the election commission for a decision about whether Abu-Ismail, a heavyweight candidate with the support of ultraconservative Salafis, would be disqualified over the question of whether his late mother had dual Egyptian-U.S. citizenship. A new election law passed after Mubarak's ouster bars an individual from running if the candidate, the candidate's spouse or parents hold any citizenship other than Egyptian.
The election commission had ordered the Interior Ministry to provide evidence showing whether his mother was officially documented in Egypt as having dual U.S. -Egyptian citizenship.
The Muslim Brotherhood fielded a back-up candidate last week, fearing that el-Shater would be disqualified on the grounds that he served time in prison in connection with his banned political activity under Mubarak. His lawyers say the ruling generals had dropped the charges.
On Friday, more than 10,000 Egyptians marched from mosques and protested in Cairo's Tahrir Square in a show of strength by Islamists demanding that Suleiman and other ousted regime officials be barred from running.
Ayman Nour, a liberal presidential hopeful, said the commission told him he was disqualified because of his imprisonment as a dissident under Mubarak's regime and because his name was not listed among registered voters.
He also promised to appeal, saying the decision was "politicized as the whole race is deeply politicized."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The Buffett Rule Vs. 18%
By Lara Hoffmans
The heretofore undefined “Buffett rule” got a bit less murky recently, as the senate introduced the “Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012” in March and the president commented on the proposal yesterday.
The broad-strokes plan is to make those earning more than $1 million annually to pay at least 30% in taxes.
Which is still pretty murky, and sounds a bit like an Alternate Alternative Minimum Tax (AAMT—try not to scream when you say it aloud).
Recall, the AMT was designed in 1969 to net 155 high-net-worth households that had successfully avoided all federal income taxes. It’s projected 8 million households will pay it this year. To avoid ensnaring vastly more (an estimated 21 million additional households in tax year 2011), it requires an inflation patch that Republicans and Democrats play chicken on each year. So that didn’t work out so well.
The AAMT, or the “Buffett rule”—projected to raise just $5 billion, or 0.5% of the 2012 budget deficit—isn’t being sold as a big revenue raiser. Rather, it’s proposed as a way to make sure millionaires pay a higher rate than lower-income earners. Doesn’t seem like a radical aim. Warren Buffett famously advertises he pays a lower rate than his secretary! But this oft-disputed factoid (Mr. Buffett derives his wealth from his firm, and his firm pays the corporate tax rate which some argue should be accounted for) is what’s known as “anecdotal evidence”. IRS data show people who earn more do, in fact, on average pay a higher rate than those who earn less.
The top earning quintile pays an effective 17.3% federal income tax rate on their adjusted gross income (AGI) and the middle quintile pays 4.1%. The bottom two quintiles pay an effective negative rate, but naturally still pay payroll taxes. The top 1% pays an effective 24%. The top 0.1% pays 23.6%—a touch less than the top 1% as a whole—but we can let them sort that out amongst themselves. So big earners do pay more, but whether or not the rate they pay is “fair” seems subjective—and this columnist doesn’t traffic in fairness disputes.
Still, all this seems very much beside the point. Tax receipts as a percent of GDP tend not to be very volatile over time—hovering close to the long-term average of 18%. Deviations tend to be tied much more to economic trends, not tax policy (i.e., in recessions, incomes dip and so do receipts). The top tax rate has been as high as 94% and as low as 31%, yet receipts have stayed in a tight bandwidth. The introduction of AMT didn’t budge that, and the AAMT (or AAAAAAMT) likely won’t move it either.
Why? Tax receipt projections from new schemes are nearly always wrong. Politicians seem to understand very well how incentives work when it comes to doling out tax exemptions for favored industries—tax these guys less over here, and they’ll have incentive to produce more. But they seem to forget all that when it comes to raising revenue. If you raise taxes, people (and firms) have incentive to produce less. Or make it look like they’re producing less through (in the vast majority of the time, completely legal) loopholes found in our 72,000+ page tax code. (A lesson the Brits understand—they found they were collecting less under their 50% top tax rate and are now dropping it.) Then, when taxes get raised and receipts don’t necessarily follow suit, politicians often scratch their heads and wonder what evil forces are afoot.
In an election year, my sense is there won’t be any major tax code jiggering. Any version of a Buffett rule is destined for a speedy death in the Republican-held House and may not even pass the Democrat-held Senate. (And Republicans likely only gain seats in both houses in November.) Then there’s that tricky issue of what exactly “income” means. Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary because much of his income is (legally) taxed at lower rates. That’s not his fault. If politicians want someone to blame for something they view as unfair, they might start with a looking glass.
But rather than risking annoying huge swaths of voters with tax shifts, politicians will likely prefer to bluster than legislate this year. And Mr. Buffett will likely once again pay a lower rate than his secretary (unless he finally follows my advice and lets her use his accountant).
This constitutes the views, opinions and commentary of the author as of March 2012 and should not be regarded as personal investment advice. No assurances are made the author will continue to hold these views, which may change at any time without notice. No assurances are made regarding the accuracy of any forecast made. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investing in stock markets involves the risk of loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Spring Slump May Provide Roots of the Next Recession
By Ashish Advani
Last week, I discussed the possibility of QE3 being a matter of "when," not "if." And I suspect that after the recent declines in the stock markets, we will see it sooner rather than later.
While the excuse being given is the jitters about Europe, one only needs to take a look in our own backyard and we will find more jitters here than in Europe. Not to say Europe isn't in bad shape, but we are definitely in worse shape.
Earnings season has just begun. It’s a time when all listed companies start giving us the scorecard of their last quarterly performance. If expectations are anything to go by, the market is expecting this quarter to be the weakest in the past few. This is in addition to the overall nervousness that already exists.
In other words, we are in for a deep slide in the stock markets for the next few weeks.
The new slide began last Friday when the latest jobless numbers were released. As I had predicted last week, the number was quite poor and this got the markets into a tizzy. As a result, we have now seen then Dow Jones Industrial Average break below the 50-day moving average, which is the first signs of the rot.
If this continues for a week, we will see it break some major levels and then go into a deep dive.
If that is to happen, the Federal Reserve will have no choice but to jump in and attempt a rescue by pumping more cheap money into the system. When this happens, the markets will rally but the fundamentals of the economy won't improve one bit.
The last nail in the coffin will be the next month's jobless number, which will be weak to very poor. That will start the slide in earnest unless the financial results before then are really awful.
Now one can make money shorting stocks or buying put options. Most savvy investors may do that as a short-term strategy. However, this isn't a long-term play for investments as the markets will continue to lurch and sway like a drunken sailor.
The wiser and longer-term monies are making their way over to Asia where the growth isn't in doubt. The only thing not known is whether the growth will be in the 5 percent to 7 percent range or in the 7 percent to 10 percent range.
As I have advocated, diversify your portfolio to Asian stocks, commodities (gold has started rallying again) as well as shorting the U.S. stock markets.
© 2012 Moneynews. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)WHAT IS THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ABOUT?
The Republican Party presidential debates, the declarations and teleprompted speeches of President Obama, the pronouncements of the leaders of Congress on both sides of the aisle, the repetitive, specious rantings of broadcast media’s talking heads…none of that mind numbing background noise has brought any clarity to what this coming election is about.
This election is about freedom…our freedom as a nation founded on the principle best articulated
by Thomas Paine who wrote… “government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one” . Woodrow Wilson said: “ Liberty has never come from the government…the history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it.”
The public conversations we have been subjected to speak about the ballooning federal deficit in the language of bookkeepers. That’s not the threat to the quality of life in America. The threat to what this nation is all about is the intrusion of government into our everyday lives in every way imaginable.
The Catholic church is told it must participate in funding abortions through the Obama Care mandate. All Americans are told they must buy health care insurance or face financial penalties in the form of special taxes. The auto industry is told what kind of cars to make and market. The bankers are told to forfeit their collection rights on loan and mortgage defaults. The energy industry is denied the rights to explore and drill for oil. The nuclear power industry is denied permits for new generating plants. Universities are restricted from merit admissions policies. High schools are restricted from special track programs for bright students..
State governments are told they can’t enforce their immigration laws involving criminal, illegal aliens. Municipalities are threatened with federal funding withdrawal if they permit school vouchers. States are told they cannot ask for photo ID’s from would-be voters. Business owners are told their profits from growing their business will be subject to higher taxes. Government regulators issue new rules each day on environmental restrictions, employment restrictions, location restrictions, workplace restrictions, This erosion of a citizen’s rights is relentless. This is what the election is about.
But what is the public discourse? It’s about the relationship of the deficit to the national debt limit…the relationship between interest on the national debt and inflation…the relationship between the deficit and jobs…between deficits and housing…between deficits and the stock market…between the deficit and interest rates…between the deficit and economic growth. That’s all bookkeeping. Why isn’t someone asking what’s happening to our freedom as a nation?
The growing deficit is threatening our freedom. That’s the real issue…it is freedom…as manifest by the government’s share of the Gross Domestic Product – its share of the earnings and output of every productive citizen in America. When the government’s share approaches or exceeds 100% of our Gross Domestic Product…it is an absolute manifestation of the erosion of our basic freedom as Americans. Our Founders conceived of this nation while splayed across a giant anvil of governmental tyranny as manifest by the monarchy. Our Constitution was written to prevent any government of any form from ever again taking our freedom away. And it’s more than freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or freedom from fear…our Constitution intended to guarantee our freedom of thought, choice and action. That’s the origin of “free enterprise”.
But we’re incurring debt to pay for entitlement programs at a rate which will make our deficit bigger than our GDP. And it is compromising free enterprise! That’s what this election is all about. The government bureaucracy has expanded 150% under Obama. We have “Czars” over virtually every facet of our life…a Czar is a Presidential appointee who avoids congressional review and vetting and is given authority over an Agency or Program. They spend billions of unbudgeted dollars on their programs…they issue thousands of regulations inhibiting your freedom of action…they are changing our society from a free enterprise to a government planned enterprise.
Through the use of tax schemes, business regulations, banking regulations, manufacturing regulations, environmental regulations, fiscal irresponsibility, spending levels greater than revenues, unbudgeted executive actions, unfunded government pension programs for government employees with benefits which exceed private industry…for government printing of money to offset the revenue/spend mismatch…for the trade deficit caused by the exodus of American manufacturing and the dependence on foreign oil…for all of these…America will soon be looking like Spain, Greece, Italy, the UK, France…all victims of government spending in excess of government revenues…with confiscatory taxes and crippling regulations by an incompetent bureaucracy driven not by a real ideological belief…but driven by a need for job security…where employment is not based on merit and productivity…but political correctness.
This is what the election is about. Do you want America to surrender to the panderers of the “level playing field” where merit and personal initiative are voided and rendered absent and entitlement and government assistance will take their place. That’s not the America of Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington or Lincoln. The world is strewn with the debris of the “great societies” where social engineers have co-opted the word “liberal” and destroyed their societies by taxing, promising and spending. There is nothing liberal or humanitarian about deconstructing the vision of our founders for a free and equal opportunity society. There is nothing humanitarian about demonizing personal motivation and individual productivity. There is nothing humanitarian about encouraging expectations of a governmental support system for those who choose to take rather than produce.
That’s what President Obama wants. That is his vision for America. He wants to level the field, castrate the creative, punish the producer, empower the bureaucrat…all in the name of “the great liberal society” which history has repeatedly shown fails. Government planners don’t make this country work…productive citizens make it work. Our founders knew that. Historians know that. Obama ignores history. His vision has been shaped by his personal experiences, his mentors and his anger at America. If you want a free and prospering America, keep him out of the White House. Unfortunately, the Republicans have yet to articulate their vision for the country. Keep America free by understanding what’s really at stake. It’s your freedom which is threatened!
Abe Bernstein
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Opening World Series Pitch - 10+ years ago.
This is our country at one of its best moments....
This is a great clip, don't miss it!!
http://youtu.be/bxR1tZ08FcI"
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Egyptian presidential hopefuls barred from race
By MAGGIE MICHAEL | Associated Press
Egypt's election commission disqualified 10 presidential hopefuls, including Hosni Mubarak's former spy chief and key Islamists, from running Saturday in a surprise decision that threatened to upend an already tumultuous race and plunge the Arab world's most populous nation into a new political crisis.
Farouk Sultan, the head of the Supreme Presidential Election Commission that was appointed by Egypt's military rulers to oversee the vote, said that those barred from the race Mubarak-era strongman Omar Suleiman, Muslim Brotherhood chief strategist Khairat el-Shater and hard-line lawyer-turned-preacher Hazem Abu Ismail. He didn't give a reason.
The announcement came as a shock to many Egyptians as three of the 10 excluded were considered among the front-runners in a highly polarized campaign that has left the nation divided into two strong camps: Islamists and former regime insiders who are allegedly supported by the ruling generals.
If upheld, the decision would reshape the electoral landscape by removing the most powerful and controversial candidates and leaving a field of moderates.
Disqualified candidates have 48 hours to appeal the decision, according to election rules. The final list of candidates will be announced on April 26. Thirteen others had their candidacy approved, including former Arab League chief Amr Moussa, moderate Islamist Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh and former prime minister Ahmed Shafiq, according to Sultan.
A spokesman for el-Shater's campaign, Murad Mohammed Ali, called the decision "very dangerous" and said it gives a message that "there was no revolution in Egypt." Officials with all the campaigns vowed to appeal.
The struggle for power more than a year after Mubarak was ousted in a popular uprising has heated up with the approach of next month's presidential vote, in which Islamist hopes of capturing Egypt's highest post was recently challenged by the emergence of Mubarak's vice president Suleiman onto the political scene after a long disappearance from public view.
The Muslim Brotherhood, along with hard-line ultraconservative Salafis, captured more than 70 percent of the parliament seats in the first post-revolution elections.
Liberal and secular revolutionaries who spearheaded the mass protests that led to Mubarak's ouster have largely been sidelined.
The presidential election is due on May 23-24, with a possible runoff on June 16-17. The winner will be announced on June 21, less than two weeks before the July 1 deadline promised by the military rulers who took over after Mubarak to hand over power.
Saturday's announcement was the latest twist
The Muslim Brotherhood announced on March 31 that el-Shater would run for president, reversing an earlier pledge not to seek the office. The move came after weeks of complaints by the Brotherhood that the parliament they control is toothless and that the ruling military was blocking it from wielding power from parliament and preventing it from forming a government.
In what was seen as a countermove backed by the generals, Suleiman made an unexpected announcement a week later that he was entering the race for the presidential elections. Suleiman said he had decided to run to block Islamist rule and provide stability after more than a year of turmoil.
A judge close to the commission, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to disclose the information, said that Suleiman has not presented the proper number of endorsements. Each candidate needed at least 30,000 endorsements, including at least 1,000 from each of the country's 15 provinces, to join the race.
His campaign spokeswoman Reem Mamdouh said in an interview with the local CBC television network that they had not been officially notified about the decisions but would definite appeal.
"Suleiman will never withdraw and let down the hopes of the large constituency of Egyptians who supported him. This is not happening," she said.
Many observers also had been looking to the election commission for a decision about whether Abu-Ismail, a heavyweight candidate with the support of ultraconservative Salafis, would be disqualified over the question of whether his late mother had dual Egyptian-U.S. citizenship. A new election law passed after Mubarak's ouster bars an individual from running if the candidate, the candidate's spouse or parents hold any citizenship other than Egyptian.
The election commission had ordered the Interior Ministry to provide evidence showing whether his mother was officially documented in Egypt as having dual U.S. -Egyptian citizenship.
The Muslim Brotherhood fielded a back-up candidate last week, fearing that el-Shater would be disqualified on the grounds that he served time in prison in connection with his banned political activity under Mubarak. His lawyers say the ruling generals had dropped the charges.
On Friday, more than 10,000 Egyptians marched from mosques and protested in Cairo's Tahrir Square in a show of strength by Islamists demanding that Suleiman and other ousted regime officials be barred from running.
Ayman Nour, a liberal presidential hopeful, said the commission told him he was disqualified because of his imprisonment as a dissident under Mubarak's regime and because his name was not listed among registered voters.
He also promised to appeal, saying the decision was "politicized as the whole race is deeply politicized."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The Buffett Rule Vs. 18%
By Lara Hoffmans
The heretofore undefined “Buffett rule” got a bit less murky recently, as the senate introduced the “Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012” in March and the president commented on the proposal yesterday.
The broad-strokes plan is to make those earning more than $1 million annually to pay at least 30% in taxes.
Which is still pretty murky, and sounds a bit like an Alternate Alternative Minimum Tax (AAMT—try not to scream when you say it aloud).
Recall, the AMT was designed in 1969 to net 155 high-net-worth households that had successfully avoided all federal income taxes. It’s projected 8 million households will pay it this year. To avoid ensnaring vastly more (an estimated 21 million additional households in tax year 2011), it requires an inflation patch that Republicans and Democrats play chicken on each year. So that didn’t work out so well.
The AAMT, or the “Buffett rule”—projected to raise just $5 billion, or 0.5% of the 2012 budget deficit—isn’t being sold as a big revenue raiser. Rather, it’s proposed as a way to make sure millionaires pay a higher rate than lower-income earners. Doesn’t seem like a radical aim. Warren Buffett famously advertises he pays a lower rate than his secretary! But this oft-disputed factoid (Mr. Buffett derives his wealth from his firm, and his firm pays the corporate tax rate which some argue should be accounted for) is what’s known as “anecdotal evidence”. IRS data show people who earn more do, in fact, on average pay a higher rate than those who earn less.
The top earning quintile pays an effective 17.3% federal income tax rate on their adjusted gross income (AGI) and the middle quintile pays 4.1%. The bottom two quintiles pay an effective negative rate, but naturally still pay payroll taxes. The top 1% pays an effective 24%. The top 0.1% pays 23.6%—a touch less than the top 1% as a whole—but we can let them sort that out amongst themselves. So big earners do pay more, but whether or not the rate they pay is “fair” seems subjective—and this columnist doesn’t traffic in fairness disputes.
Still, all this seems very much beside the point. Tax receipts as a percent of GDP tend not to be very volatile over time—hovering close to the long-term average of 18%. Deviations tend to be tied much more to economic trends, not tax policy (i.e., in recessions, incomes dip and so do receipts). The top tax rate has been as high as 94% and as low as 31%, yet receipts have stayed in a tight bandwidth. The introduction of AMT didn’t budge that, and the AAMT (or AAAAAAMT) likely won’t move it either.
Why? Tax receipt projections from new schemes are nearly always wrong. Politicians seem to understand very well how incentives work when it comes to doling out tax exemptions for favored industries—tax these guys less over here, and they’ll have incentive to produce more. But they seem to forget all that when it comes to raising revenue. If you raise taxes, people (and firms) have incentive to produce less. Or make it look like they’re producing less through (in the vast majority of the time, completely legal) loopholes found in our 72,000+ page tax code. (A lesson the Brits understand—they found they were collecting less under their 50% top tax rate and are now dropping it.) Then, when taxes get raised and receipts don’t necessarily follow suit, politicians often scratch their heads and wonder what evil forces are afoot.
In an election year, my sense is there won’t be any major tax code jiggering. Any version of a Buffett rule is destined for a speedy death in the Republican-held House and may not even pass the Democrat-held Senate. (And Republicans likely only gain seats in both houses in November.) Then there’s that tricky issue of what exactly “income” means. Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary because much of his income is (legally) taxed at lower rates. That’s not his fault. If politicians want someone to blame for something they view as unfair, they might start with a looking glass.
But rather than risking annoying huge swaths of voters with tax shifts, politicians will likely prefer to bluster than legislate this year. And Mr. Buffett will likely once again pay a lower rate than his secretary (unless he finally follows my advice and lets her use his accountant).
This constitutes the views, opinions and commentary of the author as of March 2012 and should not be regarded as personal investment advice. No assurances are made the author will continue to hold these views, which may change at any time without notice. No assurances are made regarding the accuracy of any forecast made. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investing in stock markets involves the risk of loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Spring Slump May Provide Roots of the Next Recession
By Ashish Advani
Last week, I discussed the possibility of QE3 being a matter of "when," not "if." And I suspect that after the recent declines in the stock markets, we will see it sooner rather than later.
While the excuse being given is the jitters about Europe, one only needs to take a look in our own backyard and we will find more jitters here than in Europe. Not to say Europe isn't in bad shape, but we are definitely in worse shape.
Earnings season has just begun. It’s a time when all listed companies start giving us the scorecard of their last quarterly performance. If expectations are anything to go by, the market is expecting this quarter to be the weakest in the past few. This is in addition to the overall nervousness that already exists.
In other words, we are in for a deep slide in the stock markets for the next few weeks.
The new slide began last Friday when the latest jobless numbers were released. As I had predicted last week, the number was quite poor and this got the markets into a tizzy. As a result, we have now seen then Dow Jones Industrial Average break below the 50-day moving average, which is the first signs of the rot.
If this continues for a week, we will see it break some major levels and then go into a deep dive.
If that is to happen, the Federal Reserve will have no choice but to jump in and attempt a rescue by pumping more cheap money into the system. When this happens, the markets will rally but the fundamentals of the economy won't improve one bit.
The last nail in the coffin will be the next month's jobless number, which will be weak to very poor. That will start the slide in earnest unless the financial results before then are really awful.
Now one can make money shorting stocks or buying put options. Most savvy investors may do that as a short-term strategy. However, this isn't a long-term play for investments as the markets will continue to lurch and sway like a drunken sailor.
The wiser and longer-term monies are making their way over to Asia where the growth isn't in doubt. The only thing not known is whether the growth will be in the 5 percent to 7 percent range or in the 7 percent to 10 percent range.
As I have advocated, diversify your portfolio to Asian stocks, commodities (gold has started rallying again) as well as shorting the U.S. stock markets.
© 2012 Moneynews. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)WHAT IS THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ABOUT?
The Republican Party presidential debates, the declarations and teleprompted speeches of President Obama, the pronouncements of the leaders of Congress on both sides of the aisle, the repetitive, specious rantings of broadcast media’s talking heads…none of that mind numbing background noise has brought any clarity to what this coming election is about.
This election is about freedom…our freedom as a nation founded on the principle best articulated
by Thomas Paine who wrote… “government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one” . Woodrow Wilson said: “ Liberty has never come from the government…the history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it.”
The public conversations we have been subjected to speak about the ballooning federal deficit in the language of bookkeepers. That’s not the threat to the quality of life in America. The threat to what this nation is all about is the intrusion of government into our everyday lives in every way imaginable.
The Catholic church is told it must participate in funding abortions through the Obama Care mandate. All Americans are told they must buy health care insurance or face financial penalties in the form of special taxes. The auto industry is told what kind of cars to make and market. The bankers are told to forfeit their collection rights on loan and mortgage defaults. The energy industry is denied the rights to explore and drill for oil. The nuclear power industry is denied permits for new generating plants. Universities are restricted from merit admissions policies. High schools are restricted from special track programs for bright students..
State governments are told they can’t enforce their immigration laws involving criminal, illegal aliens. Municipalities are threatened with federal funding withdrawal if they permit school vouchers. States are told they cannot ask for photo ID’s from would-be voters. Business owners are told their profits from growing their business will be subject to higher taxes. Government regulators issue new rules each day on environmental restrictions, employment restrictions, location restrictions, workplace restrictions, This erosion of a citizen’s rights is relentless. This is what the election is about.
But what is the public discourse? It’s about the relationship of the deficit to the national debt limit…the relationship between interest on the national debt and inflation…the relationship between the deficit and jobs…between deficits and housing…between deficits and the stock market…between the deficit and interest rates…between the deficit and economic growth. That’s all bookkeeping. Why isn’t someone asking what’s happening to our freedom as a nation?
The growing deficit is threatening our freedom. That’s the real issue…it is freedom…as manifest by the government’s share of the Gross Domestic Product – its share of the earnings and output of every productive citizen in America. When the government’s share approaches or exceeds 100% of our Gross Domestic Product…it is an absolute manifestation of the erosion of our basic freedom as Americans. Our Founders conceived of this nation while splayed across a giant anvil of governmental tyranny as manifest by the monarchy. Our Constitution was written to prevent any government of any form from ever again taking our freedom away. And it’s more than freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or freedom from fear…our Constitution intended to guarantee our freedom of thought, choice and action. That’s the origin of “free enterprise”.
But we’re incurring debt to pay for entitlement programs at a rate which will make our deficit bigger than our GDP. And it is compromising free enterprise! That’s what this election is all about. The government bureaucracy has expanded 150% under Obama. We have “Czars” over virtually every facet of our life…a Czar is a Presidential appointee who avoids congressional review and vetting and is given authority over an Agency or Program. They spend billions of unbudgeted dollars on their programs…they issue thousands of regulations inhibiting your freedom of action…they are changing our society from a free enterprise to a government planned enterprise.
Through the use of tax schemes, business regulations, banking regulations, manufacturing regulations, environmental regulations, fiscal irresponsibility, spending levels greater than revenues, unbudgeted executive actions, unfunded government pension programs for government employees with benefits which exceed private industry…for government printing of money to offset the revenue/spend mismatch…for the trade deficit caused by the exodus of American manufacturing and the dependence on foreign oil…for all of these…America will soon be looking like Spain, Greece, Italy, the UK, France…all victims of government spending in excess of government revenues…with confiscatory taxes and crippling regulations by an incompetent bureaucracy driven not by a real ideological belief…but driven by a need for job security…where employment is not based on merit and productivity…but political correctness.
This is what the election is about. Do you want America to surrender to the panderers of the “level playing field” where merit and personal initiative are voided and rendered absent and entitlement and government assistance will take their place. That’s not the America of Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington or Lincoln. The world is strewn with the debris of the “great societies” where social engineers have co-opted the word “liberal” and destroyed their societies by taxing, promising and spending. There is nothing liberal or humanitarian about deconstructing the vision of our founders for a free and equal opportunity society. There is nothing humanitarian about demonizing personal motivation and individual productivity. There is nothing humanitarian about encouraging expectations of a governmental support system for those who choose to take rather than produce.
That’s what President Obama wants. That is his vision for America. He wants to level the field, castrate the creative, punish the producer, empower the bureaucrat…all in the name of “the great liberal society” which history has repeatedly shown fails. Government planners don’t make this country work…productive citizens make it work. Our founders knew that. Historians know that. Obama ignores history. His vision has been shaped by his personal experiences, his mentors and his anger at America. If you want a free and prospering America, keep him out of the White House. Unfortunately, the Republicans have yet to articulate their vision for the country. Keep America free by understanding what’s really at stake. It’s your freedom which is threatened!
Abe Bernstein
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment