Friday, August 05, 2011

China Joins Russia in Blasting U.S. Borrowing

China, the largest foreign investor in U.S. government securities, joined Russia in criticizing American policy makers for failing to ensure borrowing is reined in after a stopgap deal to raise the nation’s debt limit.

People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan said China’s central bank will monitor U.S. efforts to tackle its debt, and state-run Xinhua News Agency blasted what it called the “madcap” brinksmanship of American lawmakers. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said two days ago that the U.S. is in a way “leeching on the world economy.”

The comments reflect concern that the U.S. may lose its AAA sovereign rating after President Barack Obama and Congress put off decisions on spending cuts and tax increases to assure enactment of a boost in borrowing authority. China and Russia, holding a total $1.28 trillion of Treasuries, have lost nothing so far in the wake of a rally in the securities this year.

“It’s probably frustration more than anything else for China,” said Brian Jackson, a senior strategist at Royal Bank of Canada in Hong Kong. While the nation has concerns, “they realize there’s not a lot of options for them out there and so they need to keep buying Treasuries.”

China held $1.16 trillion of Treasuries as of May, U.S. Treasury Department data show. The nation has accumulated the holdings as a by-product of holding down the value of its currency, a policy U.S. officials have said gives China an unfair advantage in trade. •

#######################################################

6 Likely Social Security Changes

Washington's current soap opera, As the Debt Ceiling Turns, is winding down to its season finale. Grand plans for a "big deal," including changes to Social Security and Medicare, have given way to face-saving efforts to permit the country to issue new debt and still allow the political parties to claim the high ground as they gear up for 2012 election campaigns.

[See 10 Ways to Boost Your Social Security Checks.]

So, for the time being, retirees can breathe a bit easier about changes to their key benefits. Even though nearly every "reform" plan said it would avoid changes for people at or even nearing retirement age, the only good entitlements plan for senior advocacy groups was a dead entitlements plan. It looks like they will get their wish. For now.

But no one expects the issue to go away. And with a large number of deficit reduction proposals circulating during the past several months, it's possible to get an informed look at the types of changes that will be considered when Congress finally decides it's kicked the deficit can down the road long enough.

The future shape of Medicare is more complicated. First, it has more moving parts, including related programs for hospital, doctor, drug, and supplemental coverage. Second, the health reform law has triggered cost-control efforts and other significant changes, although the continuance of these efforts depends on the outcome of legal and legislative challenges to the law. The Kaiser Family Foundation has a side-by-side comparison of Medicare provisions in both major and minor deficit-reduction plans, including last week's Gang of Six plan.

[See Top 10 Individual Tax Breaks.]

Leading candidates for change in the Social Security program are easier to summarize. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget was created 30 years ago by former federal budget experts. It bills itself as a bipartisan nonprofit and has developed a useful online tool to compare nearly three dozen deficit reduction plans, including those from President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, and the Gang of Six plan, which is light on specifics. Looking at these plans' thoughts about Social Security changes, these common elements emerge:

Benefits. The most commonly recommended change is to create new minimum and old-age benefits. This would provide a floor for low-income earnings. It also recognizes longevity gains and the fear that many seniors have of outliving their money. Expect "means testing" to slow the rate of growth in benefits for higher earners.

Personal Accounts. Several proposals would create either optional or mandatory supplemental retirement accounts. People would set aside more of their earnings and receive higher lifetime income payments when they retire. Social Security was designed to provide modest amounts of retirement income when the program was created in 1935. But it has grown into the dominant source of retirement income for most retirees. Adding another layer of guaranteed, annuity-like income is appealing to many experts. They lament that employees do not voluntarily set aside more money in their 401(k)s and other retirement accounts.

[See How the Budget Deficit Could Lead to Generational Warfare.]

Retirement Age. Most proposals advocate raising the retirement age (now set to rise to 67) in steps over decades, with 70 being the most common age specified. Key details would include tying higher retirement ages to continued increases in life expectancy and to permit hardship exemptions for people forced to retire early because of health problems. A few proposals also would raise the so-called early retirement age to begin receiving Social Security. It's now 62 and would increase to 64 or 65 under those plans.

Cost of Living. Reducing the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) to Social Security benefits is the most commonly proposed change to the program. The current index used for the COLA measures price increases for urban wage earners. The preferred replacement is called the "chained" consumer price index. It is expected to rise at a slower rate than the other measure, but proponents defend its use on the grounds that it more fairly reflects actual consumer spending patterns and not just price increases.

[See Seniors Don't Pay Full Medicare, Social Security Share.]

Payroll Taxes. High-income wage earners will pay more, but it's far from certain by how much and over what time period such increases would take effect. Employee and employer payroll tax contributions are now capped at $106,800 of wage income. In 2009, 86 percent of all wages were taxed. Many proposals would raise the wage ceiling gradually until it's high enough so that 90 percent of all wages were taxed. Some plans from more liberal groups would levy a high-earner tax on all wages above the ceiling. A fair number of proposals would remove any wage ceiling from the employer tax, meaning employers would be saddled with more of any increase in payroll taxes. However, many labor experts feel that employers regard payroll taxes as part of their total employee compensation expense, and that raising the employer portion of payroll taxes might come at the expense of future wage and benefit increases.

Other. The recommendation most often seen beyond using a chained CPI COLA would require newly hired state and local employees to participate in Social Security. Proponents say it would reduce financial pressure on stressed state and local pension programs and create a more stable retirement outlook for the many employees who work in both private and government jobs during their careers. Expect a transition period of about a decade for such a shift to take effect. •

########################################################

"If they are keeping surveillance on Christian leaders, it’s time for us to watch and pray!"
Barack Obama
The U.S. administration has made clear in a number of cases that it is concerned about conservatives as a potential danger and even has argued in court that it wants the authority to track American citizens in order to develop "probable cause" needed for search warrants.
That argument is being made before the U.S. Supreme Court in a dispute over whether police investigators and other authorities should be allowed to track American citizens who have not done anything that would ordinarily prompted a judge to issue a search warrant.
"The court of appeals' decision, which will require law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant before placing a GPS device on a vehicle if the device will be used for a 'prolonged' time period, has created uncertainty surrounding the use of an important law enforcement tool," said the government's brief in the case, U.S.A. v. Antoine Jones.
"Although in some investigations the government could establish probable cause and obtain a warrant before using a GPS device, federal law enforcement agencies frequently use tracking devices early in investigations, before suspicions have ripened into probable cause. The court of appeals' decision prevents law enforcement officers from using GPS devices in an effort to gather information to establish probable cause."
In the case, agents put a tracking device on Jones' vehicle, and he later was charged and convicted of drug offenses based on information obtained from the tracking device. His conviction was overturned, however, when an appeals court panel argued the information was obtained without a warrant.
The government asked the high court to review whether the warrantless use of a tracking device to monitor the vehicle's movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment.
But civil rights experts at the law firm of William J. Olson of Vienna, Va., and Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation of Ramona, Calif., are arguing in a friend-of-the-court brief that while the Supreme Court needs to review the case, the goal should be to protect Americans' Bill of Rights-assured protections against unreasonable search and seizure, not expand government's ability to monitor its citizens.
While the Obama administration is asking for a determination about the warrantless use of tracking units, the Supreme Court wants briefs that also address the issue of whether the government violates the Fourth Amendment even by installing such a unit.
A poll released earlier showed the WND Freedom Index, an assessment of Americans' perspectives about their freedoms, took a plunge in the latest quarter, to 45.9 – its lowest mark in the two years the survey has been conducted.
Among the questions used to assemble the ranking – where 50 is a reflection of a neutral perspective about freedoms – was, "Do you believe that government today is using technology, such as cameras, scanners, electronic health records, to become too intrusive into the private matters of Americans."
Some 75 percent of the respondents said there is a problem. Nearly 38 percent of Americans said they perceive "great intrusion" and another 14.5 percent said there is "substantial intrusion." Another 22.8 percent said there is "some intrusion."
The federal government's determination that people innocent of crimes are worthy of being watched already is documented.
The 2009 DHS report, "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," said "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."
But it said worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."
The report from the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis defined right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
It followed by only weeks a report from the Missouri Information Analysis Center that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism.
The Missouri report warned law enforcement agencies to watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. It further warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.•

############################################################
Take care of yourselves friends! Have a Blessed and Wonderful Weekend! -Missygirl*





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]