EFTA01201976.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bce: [email protected] Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 1/18/2015 Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 08:03:02 +0000 Attachments: That? s rich!_Why_so many_we_althy_Americans_think_they're_middle_class_David_Sirota_T h; Salon 12.211014.docx; The Color Medicine_Racket_James_Hamblin_The_Atlantic_12.19.2014.docx; The_Ojays_bio.docx; How inequality_made_these_Western countries_poorer_Rick Noark_TWP 01 05_15.doc x; Th—e_Uninsured_Rate_Just Keeps falling_Jeffrey_Young_Fiuff_Post_01.57.15.docx; Majority_of_U.S._public_sclool_stiidents_are_in_poverty_Lyndsey_Layton_TWP_January _16,_2015.docx Inline-Images: image.png; image(1).png; image(2).png; image(3).png; image(4).png; image(5).png; image(6).png; image(7).png; image(8).png; image(9).png; image(10).png; image(11).png; image(12).png; image002.jpg DEAR FRIEND Who Stole the American Dream? The promise of a prosperous middle-class life with decent work, rising living standards, and the potential for a better future has long been the foundation of the American dream. And it has been the political, legislative, and corporate choices that have pushed the middle class to the brink of disaster. As America continues to struggle to recover from the Great Recession, it has become clear that the middle class is in jeopardy -- and many of the policies of the last 4o years are to blame. In his new book, Who Stole the American Dream? — Pulitzer Prize- and Emmy Award-winning journalist, producer, and bestselling author, Hedrick Smith analyzes how "pro-business" policies dismantled the previous American social contract and tells the stories of the people who have been left behind. To reclaim the promise of a thriving middle class, Mr. Smith proposes a "domestic Marshall Plan" based EFTA01201976 on infrastructure investment, a program to spur the revival of manufacturing, corporate tax reform, and renewed support of our key social insurance programs. Today income inequality is at an all-time high. • Top 1.0% earn 48.8% of total income of the country • Top i% earn 19.3% of total income of the country • Top 0.196 earn 8.8% of total income of the country • From 2009 to 2012 The Top i% captured 95% of the increase of national income. In other words The Top 1% incomes grew by 31.4% while The Bottom 99% incomes grew by 0.4%. In his book, Smith says that the Congress of 1978 was the watershed, first by the passing of the 401K legislation, as a favor for the executives of Kodak and Xerox because they wanted a new tax shelter for deferred compensation. And that it was never intended to be a retirement plan for the mass of Americans. And the other major sea change was the change of culture in business. Prior to then there were a number of populist movements on the 196os and 197os representing the sentiments of the middle-class that were co-opted by lobbyist in Washington on behalf of business interest. In 197o there were 170 businesses in America that had lobbying offices in Washington. A decade later there were 2025. In 1971 there was no Business Roundtable which today is the most potent political force for Blue Chip Businesses in America. By the 95th Congress in 1978 there were 13o registered lobbyist for every member of Congress. Corporate lobbyist shifted power away from the populist movements in favor or corporate interest using Wedge-Economics. During this same period the notion of stakeholder capitalism changed to shareholder capitalism. The stakeholder capital notion was, if you took care of your workers and paid them well, this not only benefited the workers and corporation it benefited the whole economy, which economist labeled the Virtuous Circle of Growth. The essence is that well-paid workers would spend creating consumer demand and a strong economy with businesses expanding production, building new plants, buying new equipment, hiring more workers to meet increasing demand and power the next cycle of growth. And this is essentially what happened through the 4os, 5os, 6os, and 7os. This changed with the change in business ethos "we are going to cut back to increase profits." The productivity of American workers rose 97% for the mid-405 though the mid-7os and their incomes rose 95%. After that one continued to rise while the other went flat. And the one that went flat was the wages and salaries of workers since 1973 while productivity continue to grow to 8o% by 2011. During this period the average hourly wage grew only 4.2% and corporate profits rising on average by 13% a year, resulting with the Middle Class being cut out of the growth and profitability of American Enterprise. This was the result of Wedge-Economics. And if this was not enough, there was The Great Burden Shift. In 1980 84% of workers in companies of more than 100 employees had a life-time pension. When they retired their employer guaranteed them a monthly paycheck as long as they lived. Today that number is 35%. In 1980 more than 70% of workers in companies of more than 100 employees had fully paid health benefits. Today that number if 18%. In 1980 corporations paid 89% of health cost of employees by 2010 that number had dropped to 49% and the percent that employees were paying rose for if% to 51%. This is The Burden Shift. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year in costs have been shifted from the corporations to employees at a time when wages have been flat. The U.S. Census Bureau said that the median wage adjusted for inflation for a male worker is lower today than it was in 1978, while inflation has gone up and cost are going up. This shift has devastated the Middle Class as they now have to use more of their EFTA01201977 incomes to cover these benefits that are no longer being covered by corporations. And with less disposable income the economy has stagnated economically. As for retirees the 401k plans have been a horror. First of all, because the risk has been shifted from companies to the employees who for the most part are ill-equip to manage them, leaving it to Mutual Funds that mostly float with the tide. But more importantly, is that the average 401k plan only has $i8,000 and $85,000 at the time when most people retire. This is not nearly enough because one needs at least ten to twelve times their salary as we are now living longer. As a result economists say that 45% to 5o% of Baby Boomers do not have enough sock away in their 401k plans along with Social Security to cover their basic economic needs when they retire. This spells poverty and poverty on a mass scale. Think about it roughly half or the Baby Boomers might end up living in poverty. And this is largely because of The Burden Shift. Pay For Performance is probably the most egregious practice in business as it is a totally a rigged game in favor of the management — who often manipulate the numbers and dates to enrich themselves. And one of the most egregious companies abusing this practice was Apple, who under Steve Jobs admitted to falsifying more than 4000 cases where they falsely changed dates and documents to enable senior executives to enrich themselves. In the old days one would have considered this insider trading, as executives not only do things for short-term benefit, it is a common practice to make decisions that gooses the stock price prior to compensation review. Case in point: the top five executives of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers received more than $2 billion is stock options and cash compensation in the last two years including settlements when their companies collapsed. There was no stockholder value yet ten executives received $2 billion in compensation. Think about it if this had happen in China these guys would have gone to jail and their ill-gotten gains confiscated. Yet as bad as the aforementioned has been to squeeze the Middle Class, they don't come close to rivaling the housing bubble and bust which did more to devastate the Middle Class than any other development in American as millions of Americans were enticed to tale equity out of their houses to maintain their living standards. There has been a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the elite of the past 3o years and the most striking element of that is the $6 trillion lost by the Middle Class during the housing bubble. Prior to the housing bubble roughly 70% of the assets of the housing stock was owned by the homeowner and the other remaining 3o% owed by banks. By 2009 that figure had dropped to 40%. Homeowners lost 3o% of the value of a $2o trillion housing markets. This was an enormous erosion of Middle Class wealth. Championed by Allan Greenspan, this Equity Stripping pumped $750 billion yearly into the economy but it devastated the Middle Class. EFTA01201978  it Million families lost their homes tc foreclosure ttfftftfittftff ft ttititttlefil**** " •ttilittlitt•flttan a simimms M - more are un -water The groundwork for these things to happen began in the 95th Congress in 1978. Because in 1978 Congress passed a federal law that over-ruled all of the states usury laws, enabling banks and other financial institutions to charge 15%,18% and more on people who can least afford it and they know are bad risk. This led to adjustable mortgages, t00% financing, negative amortization enabling borrows to go further into debt every month. And the latest Payday Loans... Let's remember, it is consumer demand that drives the American economy. So when we are being told that we need to protect the tax rates of the Super Elite because they are the job creators this is not true. The job creators is actually the Middle Class as consumers. And the reason why we are having such a terrible time getting out of this long slow jobless recovery is because we have a weaker and weaker consumer demand which is why as Head of the Federal Reserve Allan Greenspan championed policies that pumped hundreds of billions into the economy to sustain a false consumer demand bubble that eventually hurt tens of millions of American families. As a result we as a country have almost no chance in hell to dig ourselves in the mess that we are in until we understand the real problems that we have today. The public debate that we are having today is removed from reality because we are not talking about the real issues that are hurting the Middle Class. And the only way that we will be able to is for people to find the facts, use them to bring back populist movements that change government policies away from business and in favor of the Middle Class. For those who are interested here is the web link to a discussion by Hedrick Smith hosted by Managing Editor of The Atlantic Steve Clemons and the New America Foundation's Economic Growth Program Director, Sherle R. Schwenninger: http://youtu.be/4J5WRey()ITO ****** How inequality made these Western countries poorer EFTA01201979  Countries that have missed out on most economic growth due to inequality: 1. New Zealand 2. Mexico 3 UK/ E:foarct in weenie 4 - - 5 411111 11 111 g 7.4 6.1341.2'5 it 2 u) .7 2'66 .6 -51.- •10 I -8.64.645 -11.3 •15 -15.5 Douce OECD Rd( Nosy/ TM Willis Post Rising inequality holds back economic growth -- according to a recent report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The organization, which is primarily composed of high-income countries, analyzed economic growth from 1990 to 2(mo and found that almost all 21 examined countries missed out on economic growth due to rising inequalities. (We take a closer look at the countries that were hardest hit in the second half of this post.) "When income inequality rises, economic growthfalls," the authors of the report concluded. They explained their findings by pointing out that wealth gaps hold back the skills development of children -- particularly those with parents who have a poorer education background. In other words: A lack of access to high-quality and long- term education among poorer citizens in many OECD countries hurts the economy. The authors did not examine the impact of a country achieving zero inequality (something that would come close to idealized communism), but used inequality levels and economic growth in 1990 as their reference, which they compared to data from 2010. The wealth gap in OECD countries is now at its highest level since 3o years, as this chart below shows. (Inequality is measured with a Gini coefficient which ranges from zero to one. Zero equals maximum equality, whereas one stands for maximum inequality. Chart: OECD, Focus on Inequality and Growth Report) Economically, the authors are particularly worried about the gap between low-income households and the rest of the population. "In contrast, no evidence isfound that those with high incomes pulling awayfrom the rest of the population harms growth," the authors wrote. "Since 2008, the argument that inequality is causing economic losses has gained steam. But thefact that this study was released by the OECD has surprised me," Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told The Washington Post. Particularly before the financial crisis, many economists considered inequality as a useful corollary to economic growth -- an assumption the recent OECD study tries to rebuke. EFTA01201980 Here are the countries that missed out on most growth, according to the OECD: 1. New Zealand: New Zealand's economy could have grown by 44 percent between 1990 and 2010, but the country did only achieve 28 percent growth due to inequality. Hence, it lost 15.5 percentage points -- more than any other country. This is particularly surprising, given that New Zealand was once considered a paradise of equality, as Max Rashbrooke, the author of a book called Inequality: A New Zealand Crisis, pointed out in the Guardian newspaper. "New Zealand halved its top tax rate, cut benefits by up to a quarter of their value, and dramatically reduced the bargaining power — and therefore the share of national income — of ordinary workers. Thousands ofpeople lost their jobs as manufacturing work went overseas, and there was no significant response with increased trade training or skills programs, a policyfailure that is ongoing," Rashbrooke writes in the op-ed. He also blames New Zealand for a lack of AFFORDABLE HOMES which led to higher rents and unpaid mortgages. 2. Mexico: Among all 21 examined OECD countries, Mexico has the highest level of inequality and missed out on 11 percent of potential economic growth, according to the Gini coefficient, a commonly used measurement method. In May, photographer Oscar Ruiz captured Mexico's inequality in aerial footage. The subtitle that accompanies the photos reads: "This image has not been modified. It's time to change that." 3. Britain, Finland and Norway: These countries missed out on nearly 9 percentage points of economic growth. While Britain is among the OECD's most unequal countries, Finland and Norway had low inequality levels in 1990 and CONTINUED to do so in 2010. Nevertheless, inequality increased in both Scandinavian countries (and particularly in Finland).' 4. United States, Italy and Sweden: Between six and seven percentage points of potential growth were knocked off by inequality between 1990 and 2010. The report does not offer individual explanations why those countries rank among the nations that are hardest hit. Spain, France and Ireland, however, are the only countries that did not miss out on economic growth. According to the authors of the study, all three countries have decreased or maintained the extent of inequality and made economic gains as a consequence. So, what do other countries have to learn from France, Ireland and Spain? The study offers several proposals: Besides improvements in access to and quality of EDUCATION, governments should work on fairer labor-market policies, childcare supports and in-work benefits, according to the OECD experts. Taxes, transfers and other redistribution policies could furthermore ensure that economic growth benefits those who need it most. What is Rich? EFTA01201981  The Breakers, built in 1892-1895 for Cornelius Vanderbilt How much money do you have to make to be rich? This is a question that people ask all of the time and in a Huffington Post article last month by David Sirota - That's rich! Why so many wealthy Americans think they're middle class - based on recent remarks from Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, to me it got more confusing instead of helping shed light on a troubling phenomenon. Because according to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew's reckoning, being a millionaire does not constitute living high above the ranks of ordinary people. Lew said that back when he was in the private sector enjoying six- and seven-figure pay packages, "My own compensation was never in the stratosphere." Lew made that pronouncement as he sought to defend President Barack Obama's embattled Treasury undersecretary nominee Antonio Weiss from charges that as a financial executive, he is out of touch with the interests of regular people. Lew was seeking to cast his own lot with the ranks of ordinary Americans at a time of growing economic inequality. But in doing so, Lew shed light on a uniquely American phenomenon — the tendency of extraordinarily rich people to cast themselves as everyday members of the middle class. Earlier this year, for example, Hillary Clinton made headlines when, in response to a question about her personal fortune, she claimed her family was "dead broke"when they left the White House. That statement followed New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's top aide casting those making $500,000 a year as merely upper middle class. According to IRS data, 99 percent of American households make less than $388,000 a year, and 95 percent make less than $167,000 a year. The true middle in terms of income — that is, the cutoff to be in the top 5o percent of earners — is roughly $35,000 a year. While Lew claims his private-sector compensation was not "in the stratosphere," the data suggest otherwise. According to New York University records, Lew was usually paid between $700,000 and $800,000 a year as the school's vice president, while also receiving a $440,000 mortgage subsidy. Lew also earned $300,000 a year from Citigroup, with a "guaranteed incentive and retention award of not less than $.1 million,"according to an employment agreement obtained by Businessweek. That agreement said that the seven-figure award would be terminated if he left for another job, but with one exception: He would indeed get the cash if he accepted "a full-time high-level position with the United States government or regulatory body." Lew was given a $940,000 bonus from Citigroup in the same week the bank received a $300 billion bailout from the federal government. EFTA01201982 Then again, Lew is a pauper compared to Weiss. The Treasury nominee reported more than $15 million in compensation in the last two years at Lazard. Like Lew before him, Weiss would receive a massive payout from his firm if he gets a job in government. Of course, there remains a bit of a debate about what constitutes "rich" in America. A recent New York Times poll showed 27 percent of Americans believe a family of four can be considered `rich" if its annual income is between $ioo,000 and $200,000, while another 20 percent say "rich" is defined as making between $200,000 and $300,000 a year. David Sirota: That said, there appears to be consensus that compensation like that paid to Lew and Weiss constitutes "rich"- two-thirds of the country told the pollsters that making more than $300,000 means a household is wealthy. While Lew's comments leave him open to charges that he is out of touch with economic reality, he is not alone, as surveys show many Americans also have misconceptions about income distribution. A recent study by Harvard University and Bangkok's Chulalongkom University found Americans grossly underestimate the divide between CEO and average worker pay. Such misperceptions were recently spotlighted by comedian Chris Rock in an interview with New York magazine. Of inequality, he said: "People don't even know (about it]. Ifpoor people knew how rich rich people are, there would be riots in the streets." The truth about wealth is that one is not rich solely based on salary. Because I have a friend who was making $600,000 a year ($350,000 after taxes in LA), who told me that he was having trouble surviving with two children in Ivy League universities and another two in tony private high schools, all with their own cars and allowances, as well a multi-million dollar mortgage, cars for himself and his wife, domestic staff, accounts and attorneys and a vacation home. Does anyone really need all of that? All of the time we see sport stars who sign eight-figure contracts and have to declare bankruptcy within several years of retiring. When I was I kid I use to think that $12 million was rich, obviously that is no longer true today. Because to be rich in economic wealth you probably need to have twice that and to be seriously wealthy you are in the least nine figures bracket. The real truth is that you are rich when you have enough to easily cover needs and desires. And you are really rich when in addition you have an abundance of friends and family love and support. Because you are never really rich without them. How Should Governments Deal With Returning Jihadists? EFTA01201983  Western Allies Must Share Intelligence — Treat Them Like Parolees — Consider Why They Came Back — Be Wary of Exploiting Public Fear — Expand and Strengthen Freedoms — Keeping Better Tabs on Suspicious Persons The recent tragedy in Paris has triggered a strong emotional response as events of this grisly nature usually do. The depth of feeling across a wide range of persons and cultures owes much to its being an act of terror in an age that has become largely defined as the "terrorism era." Since 9/11 Western societies have lived in a state of anticipatory fear and that dread has been kept alive by occasional acts of terrorism, as in London, Madrid and Boston. The rise of ISM has been accompanied by a spate of anxious speculation that residents of Western countries who have been drawn to the new theater of jihad could return home dedicated to committing mayhem. In this context, the Paris killings have made tangible otherwise abstract fears. Emotional release follows - emotions of anger (revenge for some), sympathy for the victims, a bond of solidarity across religious lines in an affirmation of shared humanity as reflected in the march in Paris last week and other sympathetic events around the world. Concurrently it is evident that a number of these heinous events in Western Europe, North America, Middle East and elsewhere are the acts of home grown terrorist who after going abroad where they were proselytized and trained radical clerics and seasoned harden fighter in Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Herein lies the dilemma of how should governments deal with returning jihadists if they want to prevent more acts like the recent massacre in Paris and the bombing of the Boston Marathon several years ago? Although the media and others try ignore, terrorism in a number of Western countries has roots in racism -- as well as the cultural distance reinforced by the inescapable callousness that comes with the repetition of nothingness. It is easy to understand how a young unemployed person living in an ethic ghetto with little or no prospects in a world of abundance that he is not a part of - and then he is told that not only is he inferior but so is his religion to that of the dominant culture — can be seduced by jihad EFTA01201984 As a result are seeing a growing influx of Europeans returning from Syria and Iraq having joined terrorist organizations. This is a heterogeneous group: Some are highly traumatized and disillusioned. Others return from a few months of "terror tourism" and post pictures of themselves online, armed with guns and little more The dangerous individuals are those who return tasked with carrying out acts of terror. They come back to recruit fighters or to spread propaganda; some have military experience and want to live out their violent fantasies in Europe. One of the things that we know is that the terror attacks in Paris highlight are a growing trend: Young Western Muslims who enlisted for jihad in the Middle East are coming home. Denmark is trying to rehabilitate them. In much of Europe, prosecutors have put them in prison, where they have found kindred spirits. But sometimes, as with the Paris killers, they fall through the cracks. At the same time we should remember that for generations, Americans have decamped to fight in other people's wars, whether as freedom fighters, terrorists, colonists, or mercenaries. Sometimes the U.S. Government supports these mostly young idealists or turns a blind eye. No one kept Americans from volunteering to fight In the Lincoln Brigade against Franco or today stop Americans from joining the Israeli army or the Western-favoring Syrian opposition groups. Some decisions in life are irrevocable. Joining ISIS or Al Qaeda is one of them. Most people would say that joining such terrorist organizations should be grounds for losing your citizenship which would invalidate your passport. And that the US Congress should pass formal declarations of war against these groups which in turn would formalize the declaration of members of these groups as enemies of the United States. Then they can be dealt with accordingly. Last week I started my weekly offerings with a letter by Dr. Ghada Mohamed appealing to everyone to not paint all Muslims with the same brush as those who try to use the religion of Islam to impose their beliefs on me either through intimidation or codifying such beliefs into civil law. Dr. Mohamed, "I will oppose them and hold the "individuals" concerned accountable. It is not the religion itself that needs to be held to account, it is those that pervert the religion to their own ends. Neither, ISIS or Al Qaeda are Islam." Obviously one can say that the one key to stopping domestic terrorism is to define which groups have advocated for terror attacks on Americans, our Western allies or any democracies. And that joining these groups is supporting a terrorist enterprise and should be dealt with by revocation of passports and criminal prosecutions. But what of the young person who left a zealot but returned shaken and disillusioned? What should we do to or for him? When these returnees number a handful, it is politically easy to clap them in jail. But when a country has many such returnees, it necessitates a nuanced, thoughtful, effective response to reintegrate them into civil, law-abiding society. You can't just throw these people away, because they land somewhere and continue to cause misery, often aiming their rage back at their countries of origin. EFTA01201985 Yes, I know it feels good to vent about throwing the book at these so-called traitors, even fantasizing about bringing back the guillotine, electric chair and gas chamber. Heck, the French Revolution supporters drowned thousands on boats in the river. Meeting terror with terror of our own making is not justice, nor is it effective. But we as a society have to be cognizant that in our zeal to identify and helm in the bad seeds that we do not paint all Muslims with the same brush. What is also absolutely vital is that we devote our energy to the young people we have not yet lost: to those who are susceptible to radicalization but can still be reached. By focusing on education, on teaching youngsters to think critically, conveying democratic values and providing pathways to success many more young people can be saved. Most of all we have to realize that terrorism is the consequence of a problem and to prevent it we have to fix the underlying root/cause Especially in a country that turns a blind eye to the deaths of 30,000 people who die each year from gun inflicted wounds in the name of the Second Amendment, we shouldn't allow a few terrorist attacks undermine the tenets of our democracy and way of life. ****** More Good News The Uninsured Rate Just Keeps Falling, New Survey Shows The share of Americans without health insurance has fallen more than 4 percentage points to 12.9 percent since Obamacare coverage began a year ago, according to a new Gallup poll. This is a clear sign that one of Obamacare's primary mission is succeeding. In the fourth quarter of last year, 12.9 percent of Americans were uninsured, a steep drop from 17.1 percent a year before. The change was driven mainly by increased coverage through the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT's HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES and by the expansion of Medicaid access in more than half the country, the Gallup- Healthways Well-Being Index shows, based on more than 43,000 interviews conducted between Oct. 1 and Dec. 30. President Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats who enacted the Affordable Care Act had broader aims for the law than just covering the uninsured, including providing stronger consumer protections for Health Insurance customers and curtailing unsustainable increases in national health care spending. But extending coverage to uninsured people, especially those with low and moderate incomes eligible for Financial Assistance, is the most tangible effect of the law, and survey after survey shows its working. These gains are threatened, however, by the newly empowered Republican Congress and the Supreme Court. EFTA01201986  Percentage of U.S. Adults Without Health Insurance, by Quarter Do you have health insurance (Peerage? Among adults aged 18 and older %No 19 ,8.0 18 '7.4 17.5 17.3 :6.9 17.1 17.1 17 I-f, 4 16.4 16.6 16.1 16.3 16.8 16 15.4 16.3 5.6 16.1 16.1 15 1446 144 13.4 13 Mal 12.9 12 Q1 QI Q1 Q1 Q1 QI 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Quater 2008-Quarter 4 2014 Gallurpllealthways Well-Being Index GALLUP' 'The Affordable Care Act has accomplished one of its goals: increasing the percentage of Americans who have HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE," the Gallup report says. "The uninsured rate as measured by Gallup has dropped 4.2 points since the requirement to have health insurance or pay a fine went into effect. It will likely dropfurther as plans purchased during the current open enrollment period take effect." The second Obamacare sign-up period began Nov. 15 and ends Feb. 15. As of late December, 6.4 million people had enrolled into private Health Insurance policies for 2015, about 2 million of whom were new to the Obamacare exchanges. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that more than 9 million people will be covered by private Obamacare exchange plans by the end of the year. In addition, nearly 10 million more people are covered by Medicaid or the Children's HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM, two joint federal-state benefits for low-income households, than were covered before Obamacare enrollment kicked off in October 2013. The new Gallup survey shows declines in the uninsured rate for all segments of the working-age population, and the share of people ages 18-64 without coverage stood at 15.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2014. The largest decrease was among people ages 18-25, a population that experienced a 6.1 percentage point drop in uninsurance since 2013 to 17.4 percent. Almost all people 65 and older have coverage through Medicare. Low-income Americans and blacks also saw disproportionate declines in their uninsured rates, Gallup found. Still other surveys have shown the improvements in the uninsured rate to be geographically uneven due to the fact that a number of Southern states with higher-than-average uninsured populations, rejected the Medicaid expansion, which the Supreme Court made optional for states in 2012, leaving millions of low-income residents uninsured. More importantly Obamacare coverage is in grave jeopardy this year. Republicans newly in control of Congress after the November midterm elections aim to dismantle the law, starting with a House vote this week on a bill that would weaken the Affordable Care Act's requirement that large employers provide health benefits or pay penalties. Obama has vowed to resist these efforts. But the more serious danger for Obamacare, and for the millions who have gained coverage under the law, is King v. EFTA01201987 Burwell, a case now pending before the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs claim the federal government lacks the legal authority to provide health insurance subsidies to people living in states that didn't establish HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES and allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to do so instead. A ruling against the Obama administration would invalidate the tax credits 85 percent of exchange enrollees receive, making their insurance policies unaffordable and likely causing most to drop their coverage. One has to ask why Republicans and the Supreme Court would do everything that they can to gut and dismantle the Affordable Healthcare Act when it has proven that it can give millions of Americans needed healthcare insurance coverage, without death panels or substantially raising costs. Republicans should also remember that Obamacare is essentially Romneycare, and the creation of the Heritage Foundation, which is a Republican think tank. So why don't they accept partial credit for its success? And if they truly feel it has problems why not come up with solutions to make it stronger? But we know the answer. From day one the Republican leadership has made one of their major priorities that the Obama Administration will be a failed Presidency and as such will do whatever they can to make sure that one of his signature accomplishments fails no matter how many millions of Americans are hurt in the process and this is my rant of the week.... WEEK's READINGS 7 Reasons The Cuba Embargo Needed To Go The rest of the world hates it The United Nations has voted for 22 years in a row to condemn the Cuban embargo in lopsided votes. Last year only Israel and the United States itself voted against the resolution. EFTA01201988 It's ineffective The idea behind the embargo is to topple the Communist government. More than five decades later, the policy has led to the overthrow of zero out of two Cuban heads of state. It's expensive The embargo on Cuba doesn't just hurt the Cuban economy -- it costs U.S. businesses as well. The United States loses out on $1.2 billion in forfeited earnings from lost trade with Cuba annually, according to the Harvard Political Review. It's undemocratic A poll by the Atlantic Council, a non-partisan think tank, found that a solid majority of Americans favors normalizing relations with Cuba. You'd never guess by looking at the behavior of the U.S. government. Cuba isn't a threat The idea behind the embargo emanates in part from the Cold War-era notion that a Soviet-aligned government 90 miles off the coast posed a grave security threat. That may have been true during the days of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, but it's tough to make a reasonable case that Cuba poses a threat to the world's most massive military machine today. It targets the wrong people The embargo aims to cower the Cuban government into submission by engendering resentment among a cash-starved populace. If one takes the U.S. government at its word that it aims to free a country from an oppressive government, why punish the people you're supposedly trying to help? Its time has passed EFTA01201989 While it's up for debate whether the embargo was ever a smart policy, today it's dearly anachronistic. The United States now does business with China, Vietnam and Russia, but not Cuba. The policy, first partially implemented in 1960, has survived 11 U.S. presidents with nothing to show. Give it a rest. The Cold-Medicine Racket If you are like me, when you have a cold and go to your local pharmacy you are confused by the rows and rows of flashy 'Cold and Flu' products. As a result I ran across an article last month in The Atlantic by James Hamlin — The Cold-Medicine Racket — that might be of interest to you. Hamlin says that although there are now hundreds of products there are only a handful of simple, cheap ingredients. Here's one new way to cut through the noise because one in four people, when buying an over-the-counter medicine to treat a headache, will go for a brand name product. Unless that person is a pharmacist. In that case, according to research from the National Bureau of Economic Research, they'll almost certainly buy a generic version. The pharmacists know, and trust, that the drugs are identical. But Bayer aspirin costs $6.29 at CVS, while the same amount of CVS-brand aspirin costs less than a third of that, $1.99. The two products are required by law to be "bioequivalent," and CVS even has signs imploring shoppers to go for the cheaper option. Yet many people do no such thing. The difference in price between brand names and generics accounts for tens of billions of dollars "wasted" every year by Americans in pharmacies, according to the economics researchers. They also found that more highly educated people are more likely to buy generic medications, concluding that "misinformation explains a sizable share of the brand premiumfor health products." Consumer confusion, or misplaced trust, is compounded by the fact that a drug store is likely to have upwards of 300 cold-and-flu products. Some are generic, and some are branded concoctions with increasingly opaque names. Remember when Mucinex was Mucinex? You could take Mucinex, and it broke up your mucus, and you expectorated out some mucus and went about your business. Now there is Mucinex Fast-Max DM Max; Mucinex Fast-Max Severe Congestion and Cough; Mucinex Fast- EFTA01201990 Max Cold, Flu, and Sore Throat; and on and on. Just thinking about all of that Mucinex is enough to make you expectorate something. It's a little underwhelming to learn that Mucinex Fast-Max DM Max, a name that seems to promise instant invincibility, is just Mucinex plus a common cough suppressant. It's the same cough suppressant that's in almost every other cough-suppressing elixir product: dextromethorphan. Mucinex Fast-Max DM Max has the same active ingredients as Mucinex DM, only in liquid instead of pill form. Mucinex Fast-Max Severe Congestion and Cough is identical to Mucinex Fast-Max DM Max, plus a little phenylephrine (which is also sold as Sudafed). Fast-Max Cold, Flu, and Sore Throat is identical to Mucinex Fast-Max Severe Congestion and Cough, plus acetaminophen (also sold as Tylenol). That's just the beginning of the compendium of Mucinex products, not to mention the Tylenol products (Tylenol Sinus Congestion, Tylenol Cold Multisymptom Liquid, Tylenol Cold Multisymptom Liquid Severe, etc.) and Sudafed products (Sudafed Congestion, Sudafed Pressure Pain Mucus, etc.) that are simple reiterations of the Mucinex products. They are all just permutations of, at most, the same five active ingredients. There's a decongestant (usually phenylephrine), a cough suppressant (usually dextromethorphan), a pain/fever reducer (usually acetaminophen), plus or minus an expectorant (usually guaifenesin), and something that will put you to sleep (usually diphenhydramine). All of those can be purchased individually, or in almost any combination, in cheaper generic forms. In a frail attempt to address some of that misinformation, the Food and Drug Administration's web site has a section titled "Myths and Facts About Generic Drugs." One myth is that "brand- name drugs are made in modern manufacturingfacilities, and generics are often made in substandardfacilities." But, the FDA counters with the reminder that it "won't permit drugs to be made in substandardfacilities."And to be approved by the FDA, a generic version of a drug must deliver the same amount of active ingredients into your bloodstream in the same amount of time as the brand-name drug. The FDA's myth page is 12 years old now, but apparently many people are still not buying generic. Maybe another myth therein should be that people read the FDA's website. And so they remain congested with misinformation that can be detrimental both economically and physically. But as the packaging is getting more ornate, the brand names wordier, and the more-is-better mindset more ingrained, consumer-health information tools are also getting more intuitive. A conceptually promising one just launched this week from the fledgling health-information company Iodine—a program aimed at helping everyone find exactly the right cold medication. Amanda Angelotti, Iodine's head of product, is a medical doctor who has long been fed up with the confusing brand propositions of over-the-counter cold medications. "I have a lot offriends who, if they have a stuffy nose and a headache during a cold," she told me, "they'll just take DayQuil." Like Angelotti, I am sure that you have friends who take NyQuil when they're not really sick, just to help them sleep. So they're taking it for the diphenhydramine (Benadryl), which is much more cheaply purchased alone and as a generic. DayQuil is dextromethorphan, acetaminophen, and phenylephrine. EFTA01201991 The actual ideal medication combination for her friends in this case, Angelotti noted, is simply the last two: the decongestant and the pain reliever. Taking the extra dextromethorphan is a low-risk proposition, but it's not without some side effects and a waste of money. Most people will just walk into a drugstore when they have a cold and grab DayQuil or Tylenol Multisymptom Cold, or whatever, because they know it's going to cover the symptoms that they have. And Angelotti believes that there are a lot of people are taking more ingredients in these combination meds than they actually need. That's going to put them at risk for side effects or overdose, especially with Tylenol. And there are dangers, like for someone with high blood pressure who is taking phenylephrine." Angelotti, formerly at Google, has now co-created a program that can help people pare down their options. On the Iodine site, you can click on the symptoms you're experiencing, and that will comb a database of common cold-and-flu products and tell you which ones meet your needs. The results also include product reviews (via Google, with over 100,0ot) medication reviews so far), dosage forms (liquid or pill), active ingredients, and the names of generic versions at various pharmacies. See Promo For Iodine.com: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detailimedical-translator-by- iodiemfpjawrbtafgenlainjafijjnpmh?h1=en-US I n October, Iodine released an extension for Google Chrome that will highlight any medical jargon on a web page and translate it into plain language. It's cool and easy to use, as is this new cold and flu app. Though I can't see myself using it, because I usually keep generic single-drug products around. A family, or a sickness-inclined person living alone, could very reasonably keep the five aforementioned individual generic medications in their medicine cabinet and address the symptoms as they arise. I think that's easier than messing with combination products, and usually cheaper. Especially if you consider that you're not taking medications you don't need. Iodine's press release this week was similarly practical of expectation. It told the story of one patient who had used the cold-and-flu tool, "Mary, a 69-year-old woman in the Pacific Northwest." She said, "My husband now has a cold, and the Iodine app confirmed that the product he had chosen was a correct one! The reinforcement was wonderful!" That's such a reasonable endorsement. Wouldn't it be more powerful if your husband chose the wrong medication, though, Mary? And Iodine helped him find the right one? It's a press release, Mary. The iodine algorithm saved your husband from the brink of ruin. His newfound sense of consumer empowerment was so invigorating to his spirit that he no longer needed any Mucinex at all. With this I urge everyone check out Web Site: https://www.iodine.com/translate Study Debunks Major Argument In Favor Of Corporate Tax Breaks EFTA01201992 A banner reading 'Jobs' hangs on titre facade of the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington,DC on February 22, 2011. New claims for US unemployment insurance rose for the first time in three weeks but continued to hover near a two-year low, official data released on February 17 showed. The Labor Department said a seasonally adjusted 410,000 initial jobless claims were filed in the week ending February 12, up 6.5 percent from the prior week when claims had fallen to their lowest level since July 200 The most popular argument for cutting corporate taxes -- that it helps create jobs -- doesn't seem to be true, a new paper argues. According to a working paper by Alexander Ljungqvist and Michael Smolyansky, economists at New York University, corporate tax breaks