by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Obama issued an Executive Order today that brought extra relief to some student loan borrowers. A 2010 law allowed for repayment caps at 10% of a borrower’s income, though some loan holders were ineligible. This Executive Order expanded those who could qualify for the income repayment plan.
From the NYT: “Mr. Obama’s main action will be to expand on a 2010 law that capped borrowers’ repayments at 10 percent of their monthly income. The intent is to extend such relief to an estimated five million people with older loans who are currently ineligible — those who got loans before October 2007 or stopped borrowing by October 2011. But the relief would not be available until December 2015, officials said, given the time needed for the Education Department to propose and put new regulations into effect”.
Though this Executive Order — and its 2010 law counterpart — may sound well and good, financially it is a disaster. The 10% income repayment does not help any young person get off on a solid financial footing. Likewise, because some sectors allow for loan forgiveness after a period of time, that amount gets written off by the federal government, thereby substantially adding to the federal debt.
For example, if someone borrows $30,000 a year for 4 years for a degree, that is $120,000 of student loan debt. The debt carries an interest rate of at least 6%. The Obama repayment plans offer an option that allows borrowers to pay 10% (it used to be 15%) of what they earn, and if not fully paid back by the end of ten years, any balance is forgiven.. So for instance, if a new graduate lands a job that pays a generous $50,000/year, he/she would pay back $5,000/year. With interest of at least $7,200 ($120,000 x 6%) which likely does not even cover the interest on the original $120,000 loan.
There is almost no way a borrower can begin to pay back anything on their loan, and by the time they actually can make a dent, the additional interest accrued would have ballooned the total loan amount to at least $150,000. This is financially crippling for a young person.
The costs for the 10% repayment program since its implementation have ballooned from $1.7 billion in 2010 to $3.5 billion in 2013 to an estimated $7.6 billion for 2014.
This Executive Order seems to be a precursor to a bill being pushed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, which Obama has said to endorse. It “would allow borrowers to potentially save thousands of dollars by giving them a chance to effectively pay off their high-rate existing loans in exchange for new loans that carry substantially lower interest rates”.
How would this program be paid for? A new tax or increased taxes on the wealthy, of course.
The real impact of this higher education reform is that the government is now encouraging people to borrow substantially for their education, while simultaneously providing an avenue for students to avoid paying back much of their funds — leaving the taxpayer on the hook, a deficit in freefall, a tax increase for targeted high income earners, and an economy in stagnation.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, TAXES
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 217,000 in May, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 6.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services, health care and social assistance, food services and drinking places, and transportation and warehousing.
Household Survey Data
The unemployment rate held at 6.3 percent in May, following a decline of 0.4 percentage point in April. The number of unemployed persons was unchanged in May at 9.8 million. Over the year, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed persons declined by 1.2 percentage points and 1.9 million, respectively.
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (5.9 percent), adult women (5.7 percent), teenagers (19.2 percent), whites (5.4 percent), blacks (11.5 percent), and Hispanics (7.7 percent) showed little or no change in May. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.3 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier.
Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs declined by 218,000 in May. The number of unemployed reentrants increased by 237,000 over the month, partially offsetting a large decrease in April. (Reentrants are persons who previously worked but were not in the labor force prior to beginning their current job search.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially unchanged at 3.4 million in May. These individuals accounted for 34.6 percent of the unemployed. Over the past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed has declined by 979,000.
The civilian labor force participation rate was unchanged in May, at 62.8 percent. The participation rate has shown no clear trend since this past October but is down by 0.6 percentage point over the year. The employment-population ratio, at 58.9 percent, was also unchanged in May and has changed little over the year.
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers), at 7.3 million, changed little in May. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.
In May, 2.1 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
Among the marginally attached, there were 697,000 discouraged workers in May, little different from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.4 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in May had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, TAXES
This is a tad worrisome:
Nonfarm business sector labor productivity decreased at a 3.2 percent annual rate during the first quarter of 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today, as hours increased 2.2 percent and output decreased 1.1 percent. (All quarterly percent changes in this release are seasonally adjusted annual rates.) The decrease in productivity was the largest since the first quarter of 2008 (-3.9 percent).
And this:
In the first quarter of 2014, nonfarm business productivity fell 3.2 percent, a greater decline than was reported in the preliminary estimate. The revised figure reflects a 1.4 percentage point downward revision to output and a 0.2 percentage point upward revision to hours.
You can read the whole report here
No one else seems to be reporting on the revised numbers, which mirror that of the 1st quarter of 2008 (-3.9).
Couple this with the report last week that the “economy in the U.S. contracted for the first time in three years from January through March as companies added to inventories at a slower pace and curtailed investment”.
It will be interesting to see what the unemployment numbers show on Friday.
Friday update: Unemployment stays flat
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Diana Furchtgott-Roth wrote an article this past week outlining the economic impact of Obama’s newest regulations. Obama has decided through Executive Order to institute environmental regulations similar to those in the failed “cap-and-trade” legislation from a few years ago. But Obama will now go a step further than just the regulation of power plants; regulations will include regional emissions.
Regulation is stifling. It creates more barriers for American businesses which drives up costs for consumers. Businesses which are abroad are not subject to such regulation, which means they will often be able to charge less for products than American ones. With the economy at such a sluggish pace right now, of course consumers will purchase the lowest price. With higher costs to run the business, as well as drop in demand for product, employees will face the risk of losing jobs as a cost-saving measure for their employer.
Some lawmakers are waking up to the economic impact over-regulation has on our industries. Several legislators introduced a bipartisan in 2011 aiming to reduce regulatory burdens in particular agricultural endeavors. According to records, “this legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives on March 31, 2011 as H.R. 872, The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011. Additionally, it advanced out of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, but the full Senate failed to consider it during the last Congress”. It is now known as H.R.935, “The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2013”. Yesterday, on June 2, it was placed on the Union Calendar, which means it has not been defeated in Committee. Such legislation is a starting point for raising awareness of the destructive nature of burdensome regulation.
Back to Obama’s new Executive Order environmental rules. Furchtgott-Roth summed up her article nicely when she wrote,”For those concerned about economic growth, poverty, and inequality, cap-and-trade makes no sense, either nationally or regionally. Our air is getting cleaner, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future as new capital replaces old. Cap-and-trade did not pass a Democratic Congress in 2010, and Mr. Obama should not impose it on a regional basis through regulation”.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
Paul Krugman did it in 2011. Nicholas Kristof did in 2009. So did Ezra Klein. And Barack Obama did it in 2008. What did they do? They all praised the VA system as a model for health care.
Krugman: “Yes, this is ‘socialized medicine’…But it works, and suggests what it will take to solve the troubles of US health care more broadly.”
Kristof: It is fully government run, much more “socialized medicine” than is Canadian health care with its private doctors and hospitals. And the system for veterans is by all accounts one of the best-performing and most cost-effective elements in the American medical establishment.
Klein: the “VA is actually socialized medicine, where the government owns the hospitals and employs the doctors. If you ordered America’s different health systems worst-functioning to best, it would look like this: individual insurance market, employer-based insurance market, Medicare, Veterans Health Administration”
Obama: Make the VA a leader of national health care reform so that veterans get the best care possible.
We all now know how laughable these statements are. At least they did get one thing right: The VA is a model for healthcare — government-run health care.
Money is not the problem. From 2007 to 2012, enrollment in VA services has increased by 13% from 2007 to 2012. At the same time, the VA budget went from $82 million to $125 million — a 53% increase, and the biggest jump in budget history since records go back from 1940. Yet the VA could not deliver quality services to our Veterans.
We see the same scenario with the other major government -run health program: Medicare. It is currently insolvent; Medicare spends roughly 3 times what it takes in and it is only getting worse. There are no cost controls. Even Obama acknowledged this in 2010 when he said, “The major drivers of our long-term liabilities as everyone knows are Medicare and Medicaid, and health care spending.”
Government should not be handling our health systems. The fact that secret waiting lists existed shows just how far the government went to hide their incompetency in running a health system at the very time that Obamacare was being debated both in Congress and then in the public square. If Congress and Americans had known the truth of the condition of the VA health system, it is likely that Obamacare would never have been allowed to become law.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA
From Bloomberg:
“The economy in the U.S. contracted for the first time in three years from January through March as companies added to inventories at a slower pace and curtailed investment.
Gross domestic product fell at a 1 percent annualized rate in the first quarter, a bigger decline than projected, after a previously reported 0.1 percent gain, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. The last time the economy shrank was in the same three months of 2011”.
Is this temporary? Is it a signal of another downward slump? Next Friday’s job report will be especially interesting to see.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, TAXES
Recently, the WSJ had an article drawing attention to Obama’s changes made to the student loan system for higher education. The article, while it raised good points, did not go far enough to explain the detriment to our economy that his program is causing.
President Obama is intentionally undermining people’s successes — and our nation’s success — by encouraging large amounts of graduates to go into the government and the non-profit sectors and then subsequently forgiving student loan debt. This practice is both a) incompetent as a matter of economics and b) devious as a matter of policy.
Indisputably, the driver of economic growth in our country’s history has been the free market. By having the forces of supply and demand set prices for different things and wage levels for types and quality of labor, people were able to make logical choices of what businesses to go into, and what jobs to study and train for. The higher paying jobs were those most productive to society and had the logical effect of encouraging economic growth. Individuals could match their skill set with their desire to earn money to find their best employment, and would be maximizing the country’s economic growth as a by-product.
While non-profits have in important place in our society, they do not play an important role in actually driving our economy, which is something we desperately need right now. Discouraging economic growth, and paying a high price to do so, is certainly not smart.
Likewise, the other sector in which Obama is encouraging students to find work is the government. In the past, the public sector may not have paid as much as the private sector. Today, however, the public sector is better paid with more generous benefits, making it a very lucrative career path. How then, can Obama justify student loan forgiveness for government workers who will actually earn more than their private sector peers, who are also the ones who have to fulfill their contractual obligations to pay back their student loans?
One of the provisions of student loan reform is that Obama made certain student loans “non-taxable” if the loan is forgiven, while keeping other loans taxable as income received. This inconsistency creates confusion regarding which loans have what kind of classification.
In general, if someone forgives a debt, like a credit card company, if you racked up $10,000 in debt and settled to pay off $5,000, the IRS considers that you received $5,000 of income from the loan forgiveness; you will receive a 1099 for it, and will be expected to report it as income on your taxes. On the other hand, if you work in a qualifying field in exchange for income and also student loan forgiveness, you have a scenario that is truly the very definition of income — and yet Obama has given a free pass to some loans by making their loan forgiveness also non-taxable.
Obama is essentially picking winners and losers in particular industries through the student loan programs and masking it under student loan forgiveness and “non-taxable” categories. This is underhanded policy.
This mindset is one that suggests to and encourages students to take large amounts of student loans and then go into the sectors where their loan can be forgiven — not into the sectors where they would be most productive, and therefore most likely to earn enough to pay it back. It’s like saying to the students, “Here’s a way to not pay back your loans!”. Frankly, that’s criminal. And it fundamentally subverts the basis principles of logic and economics. Also, I can tell you as an accountant, the numbers for Obama’s student loan policy simply don’t work.
For example, if someone borrows $30,000 a year for 4 years for a degree, that is $120,000 of student loan debt. The debt carries an interest rate of at least 6%. The Obama repayment plans offer an option that allows borrowers to pay 10% (it used to be 15%) of what they earn, and if not fully paid back by the end of ten years, any balance is forgiven.. So for instance, if a new graduate lands a job that pays a generous $50,000/year, he/she would pay back $5,000/year. With interest of at least $7,200 ($120,000 x 6%) which likely does not even cover the interest on the original $120,000 loan.
There is almost no way a borrower can begin to pay back anything on their loan, and by the time they actually can make a dent, the additional interest accrued would have ballooned the total loan amount to at least $150,000. This is financially crippling for a young person.
In essence, what Obama is doing to win over the young people voting bloc is simply telling them another huge lie. He is suggesting they take out loans on which they will never be able to pay back the principal. The numbers do not work. It’s a terrible gamble; no student can pay off the loan in any rational way from any jobs in the fields they are encouraged to enter to in with the incentives offered to by the Obama Administration.
The costs for “Pay As You Earn” have ballooned from $1.7 billion in 2010 to $3.5 billion in 2013 to an estimated $7.6 billion for 2014.
“This might seem like a windfall for the students, but the only clear winners are the universities that are the ultimate recipients of the taxpayer money. While the students may technically get the freebie, the impressionable youngsters, who likely have little or no wealth, are being given an enormous financial incentive to pursue careers in government or at low-paying nonprofits.
The consequences for our economy are no less tragic than for the individual borrowers. They are being driven away from the path down which their natural ambition and talent might have taken them. President Obama keeps talking about reducing income equality. So why does he keep paying young people not to pursue higher incomes?”
The real impact of this higher education reform is that the government is now encouraging people to borrow substantially for their education, while simultaneously providing an avenue for students to avoid paying back the funds — leaving the taxpayer on the hook, a deficit in freefall, and an economy in stagnation.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS, TAXES
Many people this year are startled to find that the IRS is holding some or all of the portions of their tax return as a form of payment for old debt. Many so called debts are decades-old and often the debt is not even the debt of the taxpayer being targeted.
How did this happen? The first part of the process began in 2008, when Congress passed HR6124, The “Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 0f 2008”, commonly known as the “Farm Bill”. On page 594-594 of the 662 page document, Section 14219 reads. “Elimination of statute of limitations applicable to collection of debt by administrative offset”.
(a) ELIMINATION.—Section 3716(e) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows: ‘‘(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation,
or administrative limitation, no limitation on the period within which an offset may be initiated or taken pursuant to this section shall be effective. (2) This section does not apply when a statute explicitly prohibits using administrative offset of setoff to collect the claim or type of claim involved.” (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT — The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to any debt outstanding on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
As a result of this legislation, the Department of the Treasury issued 74 FR 68537: “OFFSET OF TAX REFUND PAYMENTS TO COLLECT PAST-DUE, LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE NONTAX DEBT” on December 28, 2009. The Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service made changes to it how it dealt with non-tax debts owed by taxpayers. This rule allowed the “ offset of Federal tax refunds irrespective of the amount of time the debt has been outstanding”.
I. Background
“The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110–234,
Section 14219, 22 Stat. 923 (2008) (‘‘the Act’’) amended the Debt Collection Act
of 1982 (as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996) to
authorize the offset of Federal nontax payments (for example, contract and salary payments) to collect delinquent Federal debt without regard to the amount of time the debt has been delinquent. Prior to this change, nontax payments could be offset only to collect
debt that was delinquent for a period of less than ten years. There is no similar time limitation in the statutes authorizing offset of Federal tax refund payments to collect Federal
nontax debts (see 26 U.S.C. 6402(a) and 31 U.S.C. 3720A). However, Treasury had imposed a time limitation on collection of debts by tax refund offset in order to create uniformity in the way that it offset payments. Now that the ten-year limitation has been eliminated for the offset of nontax payments, the rationale for including a ten-year limitation for the offset of tax refund payments no longer applies.
Therefore, on June 11, 2009, Treasury issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to remove the limitations period by explicitly stating that no time limitation shall apply. See 74 FR 27730. The proposed rule explained that by removing the time limitation, all Federal nontax debts, including debts that were ineligible for collection by offset prior to the removal of the limitations period, may now be collected by tax refund offset. Additionally, to avoid any undue hardship, Treasury proposed the addition of a notice requirement applicable to debts that were previously ineligible for collection by offset because they had been outstanding for more than ten years. For such debts, creditor agencies must certify to FMS that a notice of intent to offset was sent to the debtor after the debt became ten years delinquent. This notice of intent to offset is meant to alert the debtor that any debt the taxpayer owes to the United States may now be collected by offset, even if it is greater than ten years delinquent. It also allows the debtor additional opportunities to dispute the debt, enter into a repayment agreement or otherwise avoid offset. This requirement will apply even in a case where notice was sent prior to the debt becoming ten years old. This requirement applies only with respect to debts that were previously ineligible for collection by offset because of the previous time limitation. Accordingly, it does not apply with respect to debts that could be collected by offset without regard to any time limitation prior to this regulatory change—for example, Department of Education student loan debts.”
The ramifications of this rule change has been far reaching. One agency, the IRS, has used it to justify going after old debts by holding tax refunds. This is a growing problem, because the agency has begun going after relatives of the phantom debt, not the debt-holder themselves.
According to the Treasury rule, “For such debts, creditor agencies must certify to FMS
that a notice of intent to offset was sent to the debtor after the debt became ten years delinquent. This notice of intent to offset is meant to alert the debtor that any debt the taxpayer owes to the United States may now be collected by offset, even if it is greater than ten years delinquent”.
The rule does not state “relative of the debtor”. In several instances this year alone, the targeted person was a relative of the debt-holder, not the debt-holder themselves, and every one of them stated they received no notice or advance warning from the IRS before the IRS decided to withhold their refund. The IRS has no right to do so.
There exists a process called “transferee liability” where the IRS can go after the debts of a relative. It is a high burden process and is not done easily. Such a scenario might be if a person died with $100,000 in a bank account, which was bequeathed to a child. Then later, it was revealed that the original account holder owed the IRS, which really should have been discovered by the person doing the estate process, and thus the money received by bequeathment could be considered as being received under false pretenses. The IRS in this situation could make a case, under “transferee liability”, that it has a right to go after the relative for that money.
Obviously, this above scenario is much different than resurrecting decades-old debt via an obscure provision in a 662 page bill. Those affected by it should demand proof of debt as well as argue that the debt is not theirs. However, in the cases where the IRS merely held the tax refund, the “debtor” did not receive due process and is at the mercy of trying to deal with a convoluted, poorly run government agency. Most people do not have the time or means to fight back. This action taken by the IRS is legal plunder, plain and simple.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS
Oh, the hypocrisy!
In February, it was announced that retired hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer, has committed $100 million of his own money to “to make climate change a priority issue in this year’s midterm elections.”
How can this possibly be? First, Steyer made his millions as a hedge-fund operator — which is typically and universally denounced as a greedy profession. But if he spends his greedy millions on items considered tolerable and suitable to the political Left, it’s becomes okay.
That same political Left decries the Koch Brothers who are accused of funding groups with their obscene amounts of money to promote policy positions. The Koch Brothers made their money as businessmen, which clearly is repugnant. It begs the question: why does Harry Reid go after the Koch Brothers and turns a blind eye to Steyer’s tactics?
In reality, what Tom Steyer is doing is much worse. Steyer is essentially telling a political candidate, “if you take this position, I will give you money”. Isn’t this line of thinking exactly what the Supreme Court was trying to stop? How is this okay? Because it works for the Left.
Steyer’s game proved effective in 2013 when his NextGen Climate Action Super Pac spend $2.5 million to target conservative-leaning coal areas of Southwest Virginia on behalf of Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe. Coupled with Mayor Bloomberg’s Independence USA Super PAC which spent roughly $2 million on ads in Virginia to target Republican candidate Ken Cuccinelli’s position on gun-rights, the two out-of-staters helped lead the Democrat to victory.
Steyer’s next plan is to influence the 2014 midterms. His money is planning on being spent on “attack ads during the election, including the Florida governor’s race and the Iowa Senate race.
Clearly, Steyer’s actions are appropriate for the 2014 elections, because political candidates with the “proper positions” are able to benefit from Steyer’s “generosity”. Yet in contrast, other organizations are called out for being “tainted” by the Koch Brothers for merely promoting various policies that the Left deems unacceptable. Either it’s okay for both, or for neither.
The double standard prevails.
by | ARTICLES, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA
Most Americans would score Obama poorly on foreign policy issues. It’s a conundrum, really, because most of the things he has done, people seem to have supported him – from pulling troops out of Afghanistan, to not going to war in Syria. And yet, people think he has done very badly with his decisions.
While at first glance it may seem inconsistent, it is not actually inconsistent at all. People don’t necessarily want their opinions of foreign policy matters carried out; instead, what they want is for the Executive Branch to lead and do the right thing for the country. So much information relating to foreign policy is not public and cannot be made privy to public. For that reason, our country has depended on the Executive Branch to use the information to do the right thing for American, first and foremost above what may be popular sentiment or easy.
FDR faced this with WWII. Almost universally no one wanted to go to war but when the United States was attacked and FDR told the American people, “we need to do this”, Americans said okay and fully supported the war effort. Similar situations with Reagan and Panama, Clinton and Kosovo. These were not particularly popular positions, but when the Presidents made their case, Americans by-and-large gave their support.
What the Presidents didn’t do, was ask first. We had leaders who would lead, even it they did something that was not exactly the most popular or easiest — because there has been a mutual understanding that a President will act first and foremost for the best of his country based on his more full knowledge.
Here’s where Obama is different. We now have a president who is trying to do what he thinks will get him the most political points with the people. This is not presidential. This is not how presidents act. This has given us terrible results.
Obama, like all other presidents, has all the information at his fingertips. Instead of doing what he should do on foreign policy questions — which is to lead — he is trying to listen to the people and gauge their temperature, if they are warm to the idea, instead of telling Americans what is right.
What Americans may by-and-large think what is the right thing to do is sometimes wrong because we do not have the full picture. We understand decisions need to be made on sound policy, not politics. But for Obama, his leadership style has been that of politics first, policy second. Because he’d rather do what he perceives is politically beneficial instead of lead with conviction, both his domestic and foreign audiences find Obama to be weak and ineffective in foreign policy matters.
Obama issued an Executive Order today that brought extra relief to some student loan borrowers. A 2010 law allowed for repayment caps at 10% of a borrower’s income, though some loan holders were ineligible. This Executive Order expanded those who could qualify for the income repayment plan.
