EFTA02716846.pdf

From: Gregory Brown < Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 8:03 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 1/18/2015 Attachments: image002.jpg; Untitled attachment 00031.docx; Untitled attachment 00034.docx; The Ojays bio.docx; Untitled attachment 00037.docx; Untitled attachment 00040.docx; Untitled attachment 00043.docx DEAR FRIEND Who Stole the American Dream? The promise =f a prosperous middle-class life with decent work, rising living standards, and the potential for a better future has lo=g 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 polici=s of the last 40 years are to blame. In his new book, Who Stole the American Dream? —.C24> Pulitzer Prize- and Emmy Award-winning journalist, producer, and bestselling author, Hedrick Smith analyzes how "pro-business=quot; policies dismantled the previous American social contract and tells the stories of the people who have been left behi=d. To reclaim the promise of a thriving middle class, Mr. Smith proposes a "domestic Marshall Plan" based on infrastructure investment, a program to sp=r the revival of manufacturing, corporate tax reform, and renewed support of =ur key social insurance programs. <=pan style="font-size:12ptline-height:107%;font-family:Georgia,serir>To=ay income inequality is at an all-time high. • Top 10% earn 48.8% of total income of the country =/li> Top 1% earn 19.3% of total income of the country =op 0.1% earn 8.8% of total income of the country EFTA_R1_02157995 EFTA02716846  From 20=9 to 2012 The Top 1% 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.40=A0 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 1960s and 1970s representing the sentiments of the middle-class that were co-opted by lobbyist in Washington=on behalf of business interest. In 1970 there were 170 businesses in America that had lobbying offices in Washingto=. A decade later there were 2025. In 1971 there was no Business Roundtable which today is the most potent political f=rce for Blue Chip Businesses in America. By the 95th Congress in 1978 there were 130 registered lobbyist for every memb=r of Congress. Corporate lobbyist shifted power away from the populist movements in favor or corporate interest using=Wedge- Economics. =p class="MsoNormal">During this same period the notion of stakeholder cap=talism changed to shareholder capitalism. The stakeholder capital notion was, if y=u took care of your workers and paid them well, this not only benefited the workers and corporation it benefited the whole economy, which economist lab=led the Virtuous Circle of Growth. The essence is that well-paid workers would spend creating consumer demand and = strong economy with businesses expanding production, building new plants, buying n=w equipment, hiring more workers to meet increasing demand and power the next cycle of growth. And this is essentially what happened through the 40s, 50=, 60s, and 70s. 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-40s though the mid-70s and their incomes rose =5%. 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 80% by 2011. During this period the average hourly wage grew only 4.2% and corporate profits ri=ing on average by 13% a year, resulting with the Middle Class being cut out of =he growth and profitability of American Enterprise. This was the result of Wedge-Economics. And if this was not enough, there was The Great Burden Shi=t. In 1980 84% of workers in companies of more than 100 employees had a life-time pension. When they retired their employe= guaranteed them a monthly paycheck as long as they lived. Today that =umber is 35%. In 1980 more than 70% of workers in companies of more than 100 employees had fully paid health benefits. Today that numbe= if 18%. In 1980 corporations paid 89% of health cost of employees by 2010 that number had dropped to 49% and the percent th=t employees were paying rose for 11% to 51%. This is The Burden Shift. Hundreds of billions of dolla=s a year in costs have been shifted from the corporations to employees at a time when w=ges 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. Thi= shift has devastated the Middle Class as they now have to use more of their incomes to cover these benefits that are no longer being covered by corporations. And with less disposable income the economy has stagnated economically. 2 EFTA_R1_02157996 EFTA02716847 As for retirees the 401k pl=ns 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.40=A0 But more importantly, is that the average 401k plan only has $18,000 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 50% of Baby Boomers do not have enough sock away in their 401k plans along with Social Security to cover their basic economic needs when t=ey 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 =argely 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 =E2.4, 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 falsifyin= more than 4000 cases where they falsely changed dates and documents to enable se=ior executives to enrich themselves. In the old days one would have considered =his insider trading, as executives not only do things for short-term benefit, i= is a common practice to make decisions that gooses the stock price prior to compensation review. Case in point: the top five executives of =ear Stearns and Lehman Brothers received more than $2 billion is stock options and cash compensati=n in the last two years including settlements when their companies collapsed:40=AD 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 ha= been to squeeze the Middle Class, they don't come close to rivaling the housing bubble =nd 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 30 years and the most striking element of that is the $6 =rillion lost by the Middle Class during the housing bubble. Prior to the hous=ng bubble roughly 70% of the assets of the housing stock was owned by the homeowner and the other re=aining 30% owed by banks. By 2009 that figure had dropped to 40%. Homeowners lost 30% of the value of a $20 trillion housing markets. This was an enormous =rosion of Middle Class wealth. Championed by Allan Greenspan, this Equity Stripping pumped $750 billion yearly into the economy but it devasta=ed the Middle Class. 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 peopl= who can least afford it and they know are bad risk. This led to adjus=able mortgages, 100% financing, negative amortization enabling borrows to go further into debt every month. And the latest Payday Loans... 3 EFTA_R1_02157997 EFTA02716848 Let's remember, it is consumer demand tha= 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 this is not true. The job creators is actually the Middle Class as consumers. And the reaso= why we are having such a terrible time getting out of this long slow jobless recovery is because we =ave a weaker and weaker consumer demand which is why as Head of the Federal Res=rve Allan Greenspan championed policies that pumped hundreds of billions into t=e 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 th= mess that we are in until we understand the real problems that we have toda=. The public debate that we are having today is removed from reality because we are not talking about the real issues that =re 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 ch=nge government policies away from business and in favor of the Middle Class. For thos= who are interested here is the web link to a discussion by Hedrick Smith =osted by Managing Editor of The Atlantic Steve Clemons and the New America Foundation's Economic Growth Program Director, Sherle R. Schwenninger: </=pan>http://youtu=beMJSWReyQIT0 <http://youtu.bePLISWReyOJT0> <=div> =C24, How inequalit= made these Western countries poorer 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 2010 and fo=nd that almost all 21examined 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 growth falls," the authors of th= report concluded. They explained their findings by pointing out that wealth gaps hold back the skills development =f 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 man= OECD countries hurts the economy. 4 EFTA_R1_02157998 EFTA02716849 The authors did not examine the impact of a cou=try achieving zero inequality (something that would come close to idealized communism), b=t used inequality levels and economic growth in 1990 as their reference, whic= they compared to data from 2010. The wealth gap in OECD countries is now at its highest level since 30 years, as this chart below shows. (Inequality is measured with a Gini coefficient which ranges from zero to one. Zero =quals maximum equality, whereas one stands for maximum inequality. Chart: OECD, Focus on Inequality and Growth Report) Economically, the authors are parti=ularly worried about the gap between low-income households and the rest of the population. =quot;ln contrast, no evidence is found that those with high incomes pulling away fr=m the rest of the population harms growth," the authors wrote. ="Since 2008, the argument that inequality is causing economic losses has gained st=am. But the fact that this study was released by the OECD has surprised me,&quo=; Dean Baker, co- director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, tol= The Washington Post. Particularly before the financial crisis, many economi=ts considered inequality as a useful corollary to economic growth -- an assump=ion the recent OECD study tries to rebuke. Here=are the countries that missed out on most growth, according to the OECD: </=> 1. New Zealand: New Zealand'= 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 i= particularly surprising, given that New Zealand was once considered a paradise of equality, as Max Rashbrooke, =he author of a book called Inequality: A New Zealand Crisis, pointed out in th= 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 Q=80$ and therefore the share of national income — of ordinary workers. Thous=nds of people lost their jobs as manufacturing work went overseas, and there was n= significant response with increased trade training or skills programs, a po=icy failure 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. =p class="MsoNormal"> 2. Mexico: Among all 21examined 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 us=d 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."=/p> c=pan style="font-size:12ptline-height:107%;font-family:Georgia,serir>3.=/span> Britain, Finland and Norway: These countries missed out on nearly 9 percentage points of economic growth. While Br=tain is among the OECD's most unequal countries, Finland and Norway had low inequality levels in 1990 and CONTINU=D 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 inequal=ty between 1990 and 2010. The report does not offer individual explanations wh= those countries rank among the nations that are hardest hit. Spain, F=ance 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 5 EFTA_R1_02157999 EFTA02716850 of inequality and m=de economic gains as a consequence. So, what do other countries have to learn from France, Ireland and Spain? The s=udy offers several proposals: Besides improvements in access to and quality of =DUCATION, 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 n=ed it most. Th= Breakers, built in 1892-1895 for Cornelius Vanderbilt How much money do you have to make to be rich?=span style="font-family:Georgia,seritfont-size:12pt;line- height:107%">=C2*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 lig=t on a troubling phenomenon. Because according to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew's reckoning, being a milli=naire does not constitute living high above the ranks of ordinary people. =/span>Lew said that back when he was in the private sector enjoying six- and seven- figure pay packages, "My own comp=nsation was never in the stratosphere." Lew made that pro=ouncement as he sought to defend President Barack Obama's embattled Treasury undersecretar= nominee Antonio Weiss from charges that as a financial executive, he is out of touc= with the interests of regular people. Lew was seeking to cast his own lot w=th the ranks of ordinary Americans at a time of growing economic inequality.</=pan> But in doing so, Lew shed light on a uniquely America= phenomenon — the tendency of extraordinarily rich people to cast th=mselves 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 Q=9Cdead 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 =o 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 50 percent o= earners — is roughly $35,000 a year. While Lew claims his private-sector compensation was =ot "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 =lso receiving a $440,000 mortgage subsidy. Lew also earned $300,000 a yea= from Citigroup, with a "guaranteed incentive and retention award of not less than $1 million," according to =n 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 ca=h 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. 6 EFTA_R1_02158000 EFTA02716851 Then again, Lew is a pauper compared to Weiss. =he Treasury nominee reported more than $15 million in compensation in the last two years at Lazard. Like Lew bef=re him, Weiss would receive a massive payout from his firm if he gets a job in government. Of cours=, there remains a bit of a debate about what constitutes "rich" in America. A recent New York Times poll showed 27 percent of Americans believ= a family of four can be considered "rich" if its annual income is between $100,000 and $200,000, while another 20 per=ent say "rich" is defined as making between $200,000 and $300,000 a year. <=span> 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 Chulalongkorn 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 Y=rk magazine. Of inequality, he said: "People don't ev=n know (about it]. If poor people knew how rich rich people are, there would be riots in the streets.=E244 The truth about wealth is that one is not rich so=ely 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<=pan style="font-size:12ptline-height:107%"> private high schools, all with their own cars and allowances, as well a multi-=illion dollar mortgage, cars for himself and his wife, domestic staff, accounts an= attorneys and a vacation home. Does anyone really need all of that?=C2* 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=l use to think that $12 million was rich, obviously that is no longer true today.,=A0 Because to be rich in economic wealth you probably need to have twice t=at and to be seriously wealthy you are in the least nine figures bracket. The real truth =s that you are rich when you have enough to easily cover needs and desires. And =ou are really rich when in addition you have an abundance of friends and fami=y love and support. Because you are never really rich without them. How Should Governments Deal =ith Returning Jihadists? Western Allies =ust Share Intelligence — Treat Them Like Parolees •=804k Consider Why They Came Back — Be Wary of Exploiting Public Fear =C2*— Expand and Strengthen Freedoms — Keeping Better Tabs on Suspic=ous Persons 7 EFTA_R1_02158001 EFTA02716852 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 person= and cultures owes much to its being an act of terror in an age that has bec=me largely defined as the "terrorism era." Si=ce 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, Ma=rid and Boston. The rise of ISIL has been accompanied by a spate of anxious speculation that residents of Western cou=tries 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. Concurrent=y it is evident that a number of these heinous events in Western Europe, North Amer=ca, Middle East and elsewhere are the acts of home grown terrorist who after go=ng abroad where they were proselytized and trained radical clerics and seasone= harden fighter in Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Herein lies the dilemma of how should governments dea= 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?=/span> 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 abundan=e 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 =ominant culture —can be seduced by jihad =s a result are seeing a growing influx of Europeans returning from Syria and Iraq having joined terrorist organizations. This is a heterogeneous group: Some a=e 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 =C24>The dangerous individuals are those who return tasked with carrying out acts of terror. They come back to recruit fighters or to spread propagan=a; some have military experience and want to live out their violent fantasies =n Europe. <=pan style="font-size:l2pt;font-family:Georgia,serif"> One of the things that we know is that the terror attacks in Paris highlight are a growing tr=nd: 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 thr=ugh the cracks. </=> At the same time we should remember that for generations, Americans have decamped to fight in orher 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. .c/=pan> Some decisions in life are irrevocable. Joining ISIS or Al Qaeda is one of them.=C24, Most people would say that joining such terrorist organizations should be ground= for losing your citizenship which would invalidate your passport. 8 EFTA_R1_02158002 EFTA02716853 Ii>=A0And that the US Congress should pass formal declarations of war against these groups which in turn would formalize the declaration of members of these gr=ups as enemies of the United States. Then they can be dealt with accordingly.4=pan> Last week I started my weekly offerings with a letter by Dr. Ghada Mohamed appealing to everyon= to not paint all Muslims with the same brush as those who try to use the relig=on of Islam to impose their beliefs on me either through intimidation or codif=ing such beliefs into civil law. Dr. Mohamed, "I wil= oppose them and hold the "individuals" concerned accountable. It is not =he religion itself that needs to be held to account, it is those that pervert =he 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 grou=s have advocated for terror attacks on Americans, our Western allies or any democracies. And that joini=g these groups is supporting a terrorist enterprise and should be dealt with =y revocation of passports and criminal prosecutions. But what of t=e 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 ma=y such returnees, it necessitates a nuanced, thoughtful, effective response t= reintegrate them into civil, law-abiding society. You can't =ust throw these people away, because they land somewhere and continue to cause misery, often aiming their rage back at their countries of origin.</=> Yes, I know it feels good to vent about throwing the book at these so-called traitors, eve= fantasizing about bringing back the guillotine, electric chair and gas cham=er. Heck, the French Revolution supporters drowned thousands on boats in the ri=er. Meeting terror with terror of our own making is not justice, nor is it effective. But we as a society have =o 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 n=t yet lost: to those who are susceptible to radicalization but can still be reached. By focusing on education, on teaching youngsters to thi=k critically, conveying democratic values and providing pathways to success m=ny more young people can be saved. Most of all we have to realize that terrorism is the consequence of a problem and t= prevent it we have to fix the underlying root/cause Especially i= a country that turns a blind eye to the deaths of 30,000 people who die e=ch year from gun inflicted wounds in the name of the Second Amendmentundermine th= tenets of our democ=acy and way of life. More Good News The Uninsured Rate Just Keeps Falling, New Survey Shows 9 EFTA_R1_02158003 EFTA02716854 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 Gallu= 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 w=s driven mainly by increased coverage through the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT's HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES a=d 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 intervi=ws conducted between Oct. 1 and Dec. 30. Presi=ent Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats who enacted the Affordable Care Act had broader aims for the law than just cove=ing the uninsured, including providing stronger consumer protections for Health Insurance customers and curtailing unsustainable increases in national heal=h care spending. But extending coverage to uninsured people, especially those with low and moderate incomes eligible for Financial Assistance, is the mos= tangible effect of the law, and survey after survey shows its working.4>=A0 These gains are threatened, however, by the newly empowered Republican Congress and the Supreme Court. "The Affordable Care Act has accomplished one of it= goals: increasing the percentage of Americans who have HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE," the Gallup report says. "The uninsured rate a= measured by Gallup has dropped 4.2 points since the requirement to have health insuranc= or pay a fine went into effect. It will likely drop further as plans purchased during the current open enrollment period take effect." =p class="MsoNormal"> The second Obamacare sign-up period began Nov. 15 and ends Feb. 15. As of late December, 6.4 mil=ion people had enrolled into private Health Insurance policies for 2015, about = million of whom were new to the Obamacare exchanges. The Department o= Health and Human Services estimates that more than 9 million people will be covered by private Obamac=re 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 PROGR=M, two joint federal-state benefits for low- income households, than were covered before Obamacare enrollment kicked off in October 2013. The new Gallup survey sh=ws 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 uninsur=nce 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 =ave shown the improvements in the uninsured rate to be geographically uneven due to the f=ct 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. 10 EFTA_R1_02158004 EFTA02716855 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 Afford=ble Care Act's requirement that large employers provide health benefits or =ay penalties. Obama has vowed to resist these efforts. But the more seri=us danger for Obamacare, and for the millions who have gained coverage under the law, is King v. Bur=ell, a case now pending before the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs claim the feder=l government lacks the legal authority to provide health insurance subsidies =o people living in states that didn't establish HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE= and allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to do so instead. A rul=ng against the Obama administration would invalidate the tax credits 85 percen= of exchange enrollees receive, making their insurance policies unaffordable an= likely causing most to drop their coverage. One has to ask why Republicans and the Supreme Co=rt 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, =nd the creation of the Heritage Foundation, which is a Republican think tank.=C20 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 =e 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 o=e of his signature accomplishments fails no matter how many millions =f Americans are hurt in the process and this is my rant of the week....=/b> WEE='s READINGS 7 Reasons The Cuba Embargo Needed To Go The rest of =he world hates it The United Natio=s 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. It's ineffec=ive 11 EFTA_R1_02158005 EFTA02716856 The idea behind =he embargo is to topple the Communist government. More than five decades later, the policy has led to the overthr=w of zero out of two Cuban heads of state. It's expensi=e The embargo on C=ba doesn't just hurt the Cuban economy -- it costs U.S. businesses as well. The United States loses out on $1.2 billion =n forfeited earnings from lost trade with Cuba annually, according to the Har=ard Political Review. It's undemoc=atic A poll by the At=antic 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. governme=t. Cuba isn't a=threat The idea behind =he embargo emanates in part from the Cold War-era notion that a Soviet-aligned government 90 miles off the coast pose= 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 C=ba poses a threat to the world's most massive military machine today. It targets the w=ong 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? 12 EFTA_R1_02158006 EFTA02716857 Its time has passed While it's u= for debate whether the embargo was ever a smart policy, today it's clearly anachronistic. The United States now does bu=iness 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. =ive it a rest. The Cold-Medicine Racket=/span> If you are like me, when =ou have a cold and go to your local pharmacy you are confused by the rows and rows of flashy 'Cold and FluQ=99 products. As a result I ran across an article last month in The Atlantic by James Hamlin — The Cold- Medicine Racket =E2** that might be of interest to you. Hamlin says that although there are now hundreds of products there are only a hand=ul of simple, cheap ingredients. Here's one new way to cut through the not=e because one in four people, when buying an over-the-counter medicine to tre=t a headache, will go for a brand name product. Unless that person is a p=armacist. In that case, according to research from the National Bureau of Economic Research, they'll almost certainly buy a generic version. The pharmacists know, a=d trust, that the drugs are identical. </=pan> But Bayer aspirin costs $6.29 at CVS, while the same =mount of CVS-brand aspirin costs less than a third of that, $1.99. The two pro=ucts are required by law to be "bioequivalent," and CVS e=en has signs imploring shoppers to go for the cheaper option. Yet many p=ople do no such thing. The difference in price between brand names and generics accounts for tens of billions of dollars "wasted"=/i> 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 premium for 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 produc=s. 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.40=A0 Now there is Mucinex Fast-Max DM Max; Mucinex Fast-Max Severe Congestion and Cough; Mucinex Fast-Max Cold, Flu, and Sore Throat; and on and on. Just thinking about all of that Mucinex is enough to make you expectorate something. =/p> 13 EFTA_R1_02158007 EFTA02716858 It's a little underwhelming to learn that Mucinex=Fast-Max DM Max, a name that seems to promise instant invincibility, is just Mucinex pl=s 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. Mucin=x 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 Mu=inex 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 =11 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 thos= can be purchased individually, or in almost any combination, in cheaper gen=ric forms. In a frail attempt to address some of that misinforma=ion, the Food and Drug Administration's web site has a section titled &quo=;Myths and Facts About Generic Drugs." One myth is that &quo=;brand-name drugs are made in modern manufacturing facilities, and generics are often made in substandard facilities." But, the=FDA counters with the reminder that it "won't permit drugs to be made in substandard facilities." And to be approved by the FDA, a generic version of a drug must deliver the same amount of active ingredients into y=ur bloodstream in the same amount of time as the brand-name drug. The FDA's myth page is 12 years old now, but appa=ently many people are still not buying generic. Maybe another myth therein should be t=at 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, t=e brand names wordier, and the more-is-better mindset more ingrained, consumer-health information tools are also getting more intuitive. A =onceptually promising one just launched this week from the fledgling health-information company Iodine—a pr=gram aimed at helping everyone find exactly the right cold medication. Amanda Angelotti, Iodine's head of product, is a =edical doctor who has long been fed up with the confusing brand propositions of over-the-counter cold medications. "I have a lot of friends w=o, if they have a stuffy nose and a headache during a cold," she told me, =quot;they'll just take DayQuil." 14 EFTA_R1_02158008 EFTA02716859 Like Angelotti, I am sure that you have friends who t=ke NyQuil when they're not really sick, just to help them sleep. So =hey're taking it for the diphenhydramine (Benadryl), which is much more cheaply purchased alone and as a generic.Q=A0 DayQuil is dextromethorphan, acetaminophen, and phenylephrine. The actual ideal medication combination for her friends in this case, Angelotti noted, is si=ply the last two: the decongestant and the pain reliever. Taking the extr= dextromethorphan is a low-risk proposition, but it's not without some side effects and a wast= 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 th=y know it's going to cover the symptoms that they have. And Angelot=i believes that there are a lot of people are taking more ingredients in these combination meds than they actu=lly need. That's going to put them at risk for side effects or overdose, especially with Tylenol. And there are =angers, like for someone with high blood pressure who is taking phenylephrine." Angelotti, formerly at Google, has now co-created a p=ogram 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 re=ults also include product reviews (via Google, with over 100,000 medication reviews so far), dosage forms (liquid =r pill), active ingredients, and the names of generic versions at various pharmacies. See Promo For lodine.com: https://chrome.google.com/webstorei=etail/medical-translator-by- iodiemfpjjnbhppbflfgenlainjafijjnpmh?hl=en-U= <https://chrome.g=ogle.com/webstore/detailimedical-translator-by- iodiemfpjjnbhppbflfgenlainj=fijjnpmh?hl=en-US> n October, Iodine r=leased 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 =ith combination products, and usually cheaper. Especially if you consider=that you're not taking medications you don't need. =1span> Iodine's press release this week was similarly pr=ctical 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 o=e! The reinforcement was wonderful!" That's such a reasonable endorsement. Wouldn't it be more pow=rful if your husband chose the wrong medication, though, Mary? And Iodine helped him find =he right one? It's a press release, Mary. The iodine algor=thm saved your husband from the brink of ruin. His newfound sense of consumer empowerment was so invigorating to his spirit that he no longer ne=ded any Mucinex at all. 15 EFTA_R1_02158009 EFTA02716860 With this I urge everyone check out Web Site: <= href="https://www.iodine.com/translate" target="_blank">https://www.i=cline.comitranslate A =anner reading 'Jobs' hangs on thre facade of the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington,DC on Febr=ary 22, 2011. New claims for US unemployment insurance rose for the first time =n three weeks but continued to hover near a two- year low, official data relea=ed on February 17 showed. The Labor Department said a seasonally adjusted 410,=00 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 si=ce July 200 The most popular argument for cutting corporate taxes -- that it helps create j=bs -- 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 at the state level don't help create jobs. There's one exception: Tax cuts do help create jobs and boost incomes when they are implemented during recessions, the paper says. =br> If corporate tax cuts don't do any good, tax hikes must be OK, right?=C2* Not really. Ljungqvist and Smolyansky found that the effect of corporate tax rates is what economists call asymmetric: Cutting t=em doesn't do any good, but raising them does damage. According =o the paper, every "one percentage-point increase in the top marginal corporate income tax rate reduces employment by between 0.3 percen= and 0.5 percent." To come to this conclusion, the authors studied changes in st