Month: February 2017

Where did Steve Bannon get his worldview? From my book…

Authored by Neil Howe via The Washington Post,

Neil Howe is the author, along with William Strauss, of “Generations,” “The Fourth Turning” and “Millennials Rising.”

The headlines this month have been alarming. “Steve Bannon’s obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome” (Business Insider). “Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable” (the Huffington Post). “Steve Bannon Wants To Start World War III” (the Nation). A common thread in these media reports is that President Trump’s chief strategist is an avid reader and that the book that most inspires his worldview is “The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy.”

I wrote that book with William Strauss back in 1997. It is true that Bannon is enthralled by it. In 2010, he released a documentary, “Generation Zero,” that is structured around our theory that history in America (and by extension, most other modern societies) unfolds in a recurring cycle of four-generation-long eras. While this cycle does include a time of civic and political crisis — a Fourth Turning, in our parlance — the reporting on the book has been absurdly apocalyptic.

I don’t know Bannon well. I have worked with him on several film projects, including “Generation Zero,” over the years. I’ve been impressed by his cultural savvy. His politics, while unusual, never struck me as offensive. I was surprised when he took over the leadership of Breitbart and promoted the views espoused on that site. Like many people, I first learned about the alt-right (a far-right movement with links to Breitbart and a loosely defined white-nationalist agenda) from the mainstream media. Strauss, who died in 2007, and I never told Bannon what to say or think. But we did perhaps provide him with an insight — that populism, nationalism and state-run authoritarianism would soon be on the rise, not just in America but around the world.

Because we never attempted to write a political manifesto, we were surprised by the book’s popularity among certain crusaders on both the left and the right. When “The Fourth Turning” came out, our biggest partisan fans were Democrats, who saw in our description of an emerging “Millennial generation” (a term we coined) the sort of community-minded optimists who would pull America toward progressive ideals. Yet we’ve also had conservative fans, who were drawn to another lesson: that the new era would probably see the successful joining of left-wing economics with right-wing social values.

Beyond ideology, I think there’s another reason for the rising interest in our book. We reject the deep premise of modern Western historians that social time is either linear (continuous progress or decline) or chaotic (too complex to reveal any direction). Instead we adopt the insight of nearly all traditional societies: that social time is a recurring cycle in which events become meaningful only to the extent that they are what philosopher Mircea Eliade calls “reenactments.” In cyclical space, once you strip away the extraneous accidents and technology, you are left with only a limited number of social moods, which tend to recur in a fixed order.

Along this cycle, we can identify four “turnings” that each last about 20 years — the length of a generation. Think of these as recurring seasons, starting with spring and ending with winter. In every turning, a new generation is born and each older generation ages into its next phase of life.

The cycle begins with the First Turning, a “High” which comes after a crisis era. In a High, institutions are strong and individualism is weak. Society is confident about where it wants to go collectively, even if many feel stifled by the prevailing conformity. Many Americans alive today can recall the post-World War II American High (historian William O’Neill’s term), coinciding with the Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy presidencies. Earlier examples are the post-Civil War Victorian High of industrial growth and stable families, and the post-Constitution High of Democratic Republicanism and Era of Good Feelings.

 

The Second Turning is an “Awakening,” when institutions are attacked in the name of higher principles and deeper values. Just when society is hitting its high tide of public progress, people suddenly tire of all the social discipline and want to recapture a sense of personal authenticity. Salvation by faith, not works, is the youth rallying cry. One such era was the Consciousness Revolution of the late 1960s and 1970s. Some historians call this America’s Fourth or Fifth Great Awakening, depending on whether they start the count in the 17th century with John Winthrop or the 18th century with Jonathan Edwards.

 

The Third Turning is an “Unraveling,” in many ways the opposite of the High. Institutions are weak and distrusted, while individualism is strong and flourishing. Third Turning decades such as the 1990s, the 1920s and the 1850s are notorious for their cynicism, bad manners and weak civic authority. Government typically shrinks, and speculative manias, when they occur, are delirious.

 

Finally, the Fourth Turning is a “Crisis” period. This is when our institutional life is reconstructed from the ground up, always in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s very survival. If history does not produce such an urgent threat, Fourth Turning leaders will invariably find one — and may even fabricate one — to mobilize collective action. Civic authority revives, and people and groups begin to pitch in as participants in a larger community. As these Promethean bursts of civic effort reach their resolution, Fourth Turnings refresh and redefine our national identity. The years 1945, 1865 and 1794 all capped eras constituting new “founding moments” in American history.

Just as a Second Turning reshapes our inner world (of values, culture and religion), a Fourth Turning reshapes our outer world (of politics, economy and empire).

In our paradigm, one can look ahead and suggest that a coming time period — say, a certain decade — will resemble, in its essential human dynamic, a time period in the past. In “The Fourth Turning,” we predicted that, starting around 2005, America would probably experience a “Great Devaluation” in financial markets, a catalyst that would mark America’s entry into an era whose first decade would likely parallel the 1930s.

Reflecting on the decade we’ve just lived through, we can probably agree that the 1930s parallel works well. In the economy, both decades played out in the shadow of a global financial crash, and were characterized by slow and disappointing economic growth and chronic underemployment of labor and capital. Both saw tepid investment, deflation fears, growing inequality and the inability of central bankers to rekindle consumption.

In geopolitics, we’ve witnessed the rise of isolationism, nationalism and right-wing populism across the globe. Geostrategist Ian Bremmer says we now live in a “G-Zero” world, where it’s every nation for itself. This story echoes the 1930s, which witnessed the waning authority of great-power alliances and a new willingness by authoritarian regimes to act with terrifying impunity.

In social trends, the two decades also show parallels: falling rates of fertility and homeownership, the rise of multi-generational households, the spread of localism and community identification, a dramatic decline in youth violence (a fact that apparently has eluded the president), and a blanding of pop youth culture. Above all, we sense a growing desire among voters around the world for leaders to assert greater authority and deliver deeds rather than process, results rather than abstractions.

We live in an increasingly volatile and primal era, in which history is speeding up and liberal democracy is weakening. As Vladimir Lenin wrote, “In some decades, nothing happens; in some weeks, decades happen.” Get ready for the creative destruction of public institutions, something every society periodically requires to clear out what is obsolete, ossified and dysfunctional — and to tilt the playing field of wealth and power away from the old and back to the young. Forests need periodic fires; rivers need periodic floods. Societies, too. That’s the price we must pay for a new golden age.

If we look at the broader rhythms of history, we have reason to be heartened, not discouraged, by these trends. Anglo-American history over the past several centuries has experienced civic crises in a fairly regular cycle, about every 80 or 90 years, or roughly the length of a long human life. This pattern reveals itself in the intervals separating the colonial Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression and World War II. Fast-forward the length of a long human life from the 1930s, and we end up where we are today.

America entered a new Fourth Turning in 2008. It is likely to last until around 2030. Our paradigm suggests that current trends will deepen as we move toward the halfway point.

Further adverse events, possibly another financial crisis or a major armed conflict, will galvanize public opinion and mobilize leaders to take more decisive action. Rising regionalism and nationalism around the world could lead to the fragmentation of major political entities (perhaps the European Union) and the outbreak of hostilities (perhaps in the South China Sea, the Korean Peninsula, the Baltic states or the Persian Gulf).

Despite a new tilt toward isolationism, the United States could find itself at war. I certainly do not hope for war. I simply make a sobering observation: Every total war in U.S. history has occurred during a Fourth Turning, and no Fourth Turning has yet unfolded without one. America’s objectives in such a war are likely to be defined very broadly.

At the end of the 2020s, the Fourth Turning crisis era will climax and draw to a close. Settlements will be negotiated, treaties will be signed, new borders will be drawn, and perhaps (as in the late 1940s) a new durable world order will be created. Perhaps as well, by the early 2030s, we will enter a new First Turning: Young families will rejoice, fertility will rebound, economic equality will rise, a new middle class will emerge, public investment will grow into a new 21st-century infrastructure, and ordered prosperity will recommence.

During the next First Turning, potentially the next “American High,” millennials will move into national leadership and showcase their optimism, smarts, credentials and confidence. Sometime in the late 2030s, the first millennial will be voted into the White House, prompting talk of a new Camelot moment. Let a few more years pass, and those organization-minded millennials may face a passionate and utterly unexpected onslaught from a new crop of youth.

Welcome to the next Awakening. The cycle of history keeps turning, inexorably.

via http://ift.tt/2lJr8W0 Tyler Durden

Three weeks after a poll found that the Trump administration was seen as more “truthful” than the news media, a new WSJ/NBC News poll has found that according to a majority of Americans, the media’s coverage of President Donald Trump has been too critical, although the margin is narrow and the split is once again largely down party lines. While 51% rate the media as too critical of Trump since the presidential election, 41% say the coverage has been fair and objective, while 6% say the media hasn’t been critical enough.

Furthermore, a majority of those polled, some 53%, also believes that the news media have exaggerated problems in the Trump administration. 45% say that is not the case.

79% of those whose primary news source is Fox News agreed with the statement that “the news media and other elites are exaggerating the problems of the Trump administration, because they are uncomfortable and threatened by the kind of change that Trump represents.” Even large numbers of more-liberal MSNBC audience, 40%, thought that the media had overstated the problems.

The poll failed to provide insight into whether the escalating feud between Trump and the press is working in Trump’s, or the media’s favor: as the WSJ notes, “it isn’t clear what role Mr. Trump’s barrage of attacks on the fairness and credibility of the press has played in shaping the majority’s opinion that coverage of his administration has been too negative.”

Trump’s most recent attack on the mainstream media took place at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, when he bashed the media’s use of unnamed government sources and called on reporters to stop the common journalistic practice of reporting news gathered from anonymous sources.

That said, the survey respondents offered strong reactions, both positive and negative, to the president’s outspoken critiques of the media. “I think his views about the press being fake news is horrible and I think it is a fascist viewpoint,” said one respondent.

Others disagreed, and said Trump’s assault of the media has been warranted due its “one-sided” coverage. Another person said Trump, in critiques such as calling some mainstream news organizations ”fake,” is doing what he said he would do during his campaign. After covering President Barack Obama for eight years, the media “don’t know what to do with someone who has a different opinion, which is half the country,” the respondent said.

Separately, in the same poll, Trump’s job approval rating stood at just 44 percent, a record low for a newly inaugurated commander-in-chief, and half of Americans say that his early challenges suggest unique and systemic problems with his administration. The new rating comes two days before Trump is set to address a joint session of Congress, a State of the Union-style speech in which new presidents typically lay out their vision for the country.

 

To be expected, Trump’s approval split was vast between republicans and democrats. The president’s personal favorability rating sootd at 85% positive among Republicans, compared to just 34% positive among independents and nine% among Democrats.

While only 30 percent of those polled overall say that Trump is off to a “great start,” 63 percent of Republicans agree. A similar share of Democrats – 58 percent – say that Trump’s lack of policy knowledge and his temperament demonstrate that he is not up to the job of being president. In the poll, conducted February 18-22, 48% of Americans said they disapprove of Trump’s performance as president and 32% said that his first month in office demonstrates that he is not up to the job. Asked about early challenges in the first month of his presidency, 52% called the issues “real problems” that are specific to his administration, while 43 percent of Americans attributed them to typical “growing pains” for any new president.

Some details from the poll:

Trump retains net positive scores on his decisiveness (net positive 29 percent), his ability to “get things done,” (net positive 12 percent) and his fitness to deal with the economy (net positive 11 percent). Six-in-ten Americans said they are hopeful and optimistic about the future of the country, including an overwhelming 87 percent of Republicans (but just 37 percent of Democrats). And a majority of respondents to the poll – 57 percent – also said that Trump is likely to “bring real change in the direction of the country.” Among those who think Trump is likely to bring change, 63 percent believe those changes will be positive, while 30 percent disagree. On the other hand, Trump continues to register particularly dismal ratings when it comes to his temperament, with just 18 percent giving his demeanor a thumbs up compared to 55 percent who rank it as poor.

In short: democrats hate Trump, republicans (still) think Trump is great. Hardly surprising.

So how does Trump’s approval rating compare to the media? A survey from last September found that Americans’ trust in the mass media dropped to its lowest level in Gallup polling history. Just 32% said they had a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media, compared with 53% in 1997. In other words, even at his “record low” 44% approval rating, Americans still seem to have more faith in the president than the media, even as both are engaged in a brutal feud with each other.

via http://ift.tt/2lUfF6M Tyler Durden

The standoff over the Greek debt crisis was nowhere closer to an amicable resolution on Sunday, when Germany’s deputy finance minister Jens Spahn said in an interview with German broadcaster Deutschlandfunk that Greece must not be granted a “bail in” that would involve creditors taking a loss on their loans, reiterating the German government’s opposition to debt relief for Athens, and confirming that when it comes to Europe’s recently adopted “bail-in” protocols, they “work” in theory, but certainly not in practice (see the latest taxpayer funded bailout of Monte Paschi for another recent example).

“There must not be a bail-in,” Jens Spahn said quoted by Reuters, adding that “we think it is very, very likely that we will come to an agreement with the International Monetary Fund that does not require a haircut,” he said, referring to losses that Greece’s creditors would have to take if debt was written off.

As everyone is aware by now, the IMF – which recently admitted its bailout policy vis-a-vis Greece has been a disaster perpetuating the Greek depression to unprecedented levels – has repeatedly called for Greece to be granted substantial debt relief, but this is opposed by both Germany, which makes the largest contribution to the budget of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), the euro zone’s bailout fund, and the ECB, whose Greek bond holdings would be impaired should a haircut on official Greek bonds be implemented.

In a positive sign over the recent impasse, last Monday Greece and its creditors agreed to further reforms by Athens to ease a logjam in talks with creditors that has held up additional funding for the troubled euro zone country. As a result, inspectors from the Troika are due to return to Athens this week where they will hardly be greeted with a warm reception.

Spahn, a senior member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives, said Greece’s problem was a lack of growth rather than debt and said that giving Athens debt relief would upset other euro zone countries such as Spain that had to deliver tough reforms.

“Our Spanish friends, for example, say: ‘Hang on – that wouldn’t be fair: we carry out reforms and get no haircut and now you’re talking about giving Greece one?!'”

Spahn said Germany was campaigning hard to keep the IMF on board in Greece’s bailout because of its expertise in helping countries that need to deliver reforms in return for aid.

Yet while Spahn is not wrong that Greece is in dire need of more growth, especially since “less” growth seems almost mathematically impossible at this point…

… the German has a clear political agenda in pushing for more Greek growth, which would likely be funded with even more debt, and against a haircut since the real problem facing Europe remains an insurmountable debt load. And as the third Greek bailout case study showed, Germany is willing to risk a Grexit rather than give a greenlight to the rest of Europe’s periphery that they, too, can come asking for debt haircuts and similar concessions.

Meanwhile, despite recent progress over stalled Greek bailout talks, Manfred Weber, who leads the conservative bloc in the European Parliament, said this month that if the IMF insisted on debt relief for Greece, it should no longer participate in the bailout, breaking ranks with Berlin’s official line that the program would end if the IMF pulled out.

A survey published on Friday showed around half of people in Germany are against granting debt relief to Greece.

Today’s news will hardly be welcome in Athens, where the increasingly more unpopular Syriza party has been promising a debt haircut, despite Germany making it abundantly clear such an action would not take place. In any event, we expect no real progress over the latest Greek “situation” for at least another 5 months, when Greece faces €6 billion in bond payments on July 17 and 20, at which point the can will once again be kicked, even if it means more unsustainable debt for the insolvent nation.

Finally, as laid out earlier this month, here is the timeline of near-term events for Greece, via Credit Suisse:

There is an immediate set of events (in February) that could resolve the issues and make the programme progress swiftly. If not in February, there are several intermediate dates that could still deliver an agreement, although at a later stage, most likely around the scheduled Eurogroup meetings – although an extraordinary gathering to approve the bailout happened in the past and cannot be discarded. July 17 – or 20 – would be the “hard” deadline, as Greece would be, same as in July 2015, unable to repay those amounts without additional support under the EU/IMF programme. There are earlier relatively large redemptions, notably in late February and in April – but we believe there is probably room in Greece’s public finances  to fulfill those commitments.

via http://ift.tt/2lYHoDC Tyler Durden

After contentious debate, the Democratic Party has selected a new DNC chairman: Tom Perez. The choice, however, as TheAntiMedia.org's Nick Bernabe reports, is not being celebrated by everyone in the party. In fact, the progressive so-called “Bernie Sanders wing” of the Democratic Party is up in arms, using the hashtag #DemExit, over Perez’ win.

Progressives favored Keith Ellison, who was backed by Bernie Sanders, and see Perez as another establishment tool that conspired to boost Hillary Clinton over Sanders in the 2016 primary. As The Intercept noted, Perez was overly friendly to big banks as secretary of labor under Obama, granting privileges to banks that plead guilty to market manipulation.

Calls for a #DemExit have now began to resurface, and Twitter has been flooded with disgruntled Democrats looking to leave the party. You can see the progressive meltdown unfold in the tweets below:

 

@flippable_org Congrats DNC. This was the final nail on the coffin. #DNCChair #DemExit http://pic.twitter.com/5PXMpfZ1Ot

— Filthy Pleb (@flowerpower4420) February 25, 2017

Inside the mind of new #DNCChair Tom Perez: Email to John Podesta during his campaign against @SenSanders https://t.co/EoJNbOffN5 http://pic.twitter.com/PAyXo3lBLW

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 25, 2017

@DNC @keithellison Goodbye DNC, you have no path forward. You let the people know you do not represent us. #peoplesparty #dncweak #byebyednc

— Tracey Noelle Luz (@TraceyNoelleLuz) February 25, 2017

#DNCChair #DemExit @DNC http://pic.twitter.com/AXnGzWqksX

— Cory Landel (@CoryLandel) February 25, 2017

Dems kiss half your party goodbye Demexit #DraftBernie #DNCChair

— Progressive Wave (@AspireVM) February 25, 2017

Ok, folks. Time for a new party. I’m done with corruption & corporate influence over people & Justice. @BernieSanders, will you lead? #dnc http://pic.twitter.com/1Cy8wtwjyT

— Josh Fox (@joshfoxfilm) February 25, 2017

@DNC @TomPerez I’m out. You want the same old same old corporate governance.

— Lori Morrell Lomas (@elsiebb) February 25, 2017

Great job DNC. Why swirl around the toilet when you can go down the pipe? #DNCChair http://pic.twitter.com/jn6OAafpLg

— Tim Black ™ (@RealTimBlack) February 25, 2017

I’m not choosing to leave @TheDemocrats. They’ve spent 25 years choosing to leave me. #FDR Forever!#Demexit #DNCChair

— Peter Daou’s Tears (@theGSpledge) February 25, 2017

The election of Tom Perez for #DNCChair is just more evidence it’s easier to replace @TheDemocrats than fix them. #PartyWithBernie #Demexit http://pic.twitter.com/sBih2bJjt5

— Draft Bernie (@DraftBernie) February 25, 2017

#dncchair #DNCFuture #DemExit

THIS IS A CLEAR REPRESENTATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY http://pic.twitter.com/qQ29khAH29

— Scout (@scoutstandup) February 25, 2017

@TheDemocrats are now confirmed as a dead party. Time to #DemExit to a party that believes & practices #OneMemberOneVote & join @socdemsus

— SDLP USA (@socdemsus) February 25, 2017

Just did it. I didn’t leave the democrats, they left me. #Demexit #beprogressive http://pic.twitter.com/ZMuRPjBzSF

— Daniel P. (@DanielinPDX) February 25, 2017

11,132 people voted in this #DNCChair poll

Keith Ellison – 5,143
Tom Perez – 502

The DNC doesn’t represent their members. #saturdaymorning http://pic.twitter.com/r1Z4CvIFQr

— RoseAnn DeMoro (@RoseAnnDeMoro) February 25, 2017

.@TomPerez Wins #DNCChair–1st domino to fall for a 2-term Trump presidency. Democrats get what they deserve

— Jordan (@JordanChariton) February 25, 2017

I won’t be coming back #DemExit https://t.co/O3aHeQQwun

— Sheila Paul ???? (@sheilapaulmft) February 25, 2017

#DNC #Demexit #DemocraticParty #ProgressivesUnite #KeithforDNC http://pic.twitter.com/3uFwlah3M7

— Lisa A (@lalv) February 25, 2017

New #DNCChair Tom Perez: 18 Podesta Emails show him working for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders https://t.co/o0XxbtSnK2

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 25, 2017

#DemExit Tweets

via http://ift.tt/2ldi08Q Tyler Durden

Several days after Goldman Sachs explained in theory why hopes for a quick “repeal and replace” of Obamacare are now extinguished, and even “repair and rename” is looking bad, overnight state governors meeting in Washington got the bad news in practice, when a presentation from Avalere Health and McKinsey warned that the policies proposed by Republican congressional leaders to repeal and replace Obama’s signature healthcare law would lead millions of people to lose their health coverage, whilse states lose billions in Federal funding.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price exits a closed-door discussion on
health-care policy at the National Governors Association in Washington on Saturday

The presentation, reproduced below, estimates that the number of people covered by Obamacare through the individual insurance market could be reduced by as much as 51% in states that chose not to expand Medicaid coverage under Obamacare and by 30% in those that did expand the federal-state health program for the poor. The governors’ meeting came at a pivotal moment in the debate over the future of the health law, which Republicans have pledged to overturn.

The Republican party controls the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and 33 state governorships; it is also getting cold feet about repealing, replacing or even overhauling Obamacare out of concerns what it would mean for existing coverage, which would lead to millions of Americans losing insurance, and potentially truncating the careers of many politicians. It would also mean the end of millions in Federal government handouts to states coming to an end.

Roughly 12 million people gained Medicaid coverage after Obamacare broadened eligibility for the program. From 2014 through the middle of 2015, states got $79 billion of extra funding from the Medicaid expansion, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Under the health law, the federal government paid 100 percent of the cost of the expansion from 2014 to 2016. The government’s share fell to 95 percent this year and was scheduled to fall to 90 percent by 2020.

On the other hand, Obamacare premiums for those paying into the program have soared in the past two years, sucking up a substantial portion of US household disposable income, and leading to widespread displeasure among the US middle-class with the existing format of the healthcare law.

As a result, significant differences remain between GOP officials in the House, the Senate, and the states—most acutely, over the Medicaid insurance program for the poor and disabled, which is administered by the states and jointly funded by the federal and state governments. A summary of the various proposed plans was laid out last week by Goldman.

The debate over the future of Obamacare culminated on Saturday, when governors left a closed-door meeting at the National Governors Association’s winter meeting saying they hadn’t hammered out an answer that day. “We don’t want to create unequal treatment between all the different states,” said Republican Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma. “I don’t think we’ve reached a conclusion on that, other than to say it’s a priority that we find a way that we can cooperate.”

Democrats were more willing than their Republican colleagues to talk to reporters after the closed-door meeting. Virginia Governor Terry McCauliffe called the presentation on what might happen if the ACA is repealed, or if Medicaid funding is limited, “scary.”

“Tens of thousands who would not be able to afford their coverage and would lose their coverage,” Democratic Governor Jay Inslee of Washington said after the closed-door meeting. “It was a pretty disturbing briefing.”

According to the presenation, under the standard repeal and replace plane, the impact would vary by state, but as Axios summarized, in a sample state that expanded Medicaid, it’s estimated that:

The state would lose $635 million in federal funding, a 65 percent decrease.

• 110,000 current enrollees would no longer be able to afford a plan.
• 20,000 currently uninsured people would buy a plan with the new tax credit provided by the GOP plan.
• Additionally, 115,000 low-income people may lose Medicaid coverage, with no affordable alternative on the individual market.
• A per capita cap — which would limit funding for each person in the program — would reduce federal spending by 24 percent over five years, requiring the state to spend $6.2 billion to close the gap.

In a sample non-expansion state, it’s estimated that:

• The state would lose $885 million in federal funding, an 80 percent decrease.
• 130,000 current enrollees would no longer be able to afford a plan.
• 10,000 currently uninsured people would be able to buy coverage with the new tax credit.
• A per capita cap would reduce federal spending by 6 percent over five years, requiring states to spend $1.5 billion to close the gap.

While republicans have campaigned for years on a promise to repeal Obamacare, and Donald Trump’s election victory put that goal within reach, now they’re confronting the task of coming up with a replacement, mindful of the 20 million people who’ve gained health insurance under the law and the billions of dollars it sends each year to states.

Among the anecdotes laid out in the presentation, in one hypothetical example presented, a state that didn’t expand Medicaid and had 235,000 enrollees in Obamacare through the individual market would see the number of participants fall to 115,000. In a hypothetical state that did expand Medicaid coverage and had 300,000 enrollees in the individual market, the number would drop to 210,000, Bloomberg reported. 

The expansion state could see further losses in Medicaid, where another 115,000 would probably lose eligibility, without being able to find an affordable replacement plan. The presentation also revealed that a hypothetical state that expanded Medicaid could lose 24 percent of federal dollars spent on the program over five years, requiring $6.2 billion to make up the gap. The scenario would require Congress to repeal the expansion and implement a per-person funding mechanism. A hypothetical state that didn’t expand the program could lose 6 percent in federal spending.

 

The presentation is based on a plan by Republican leaders to eliminate income-based subsidies under Obamacare that help people afford insurance and replace them with age-based tax credits.

President Trump hasn’t weighed in publicly in the current fight. Members of the administration have been working to smooth the way for changing former President Barack Obama’s health-care law. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price attended the governors’ meeting Saturday afternoon. At issue is whether to maintain significant federal funding for states that have expanded eligibility for Medicaid to include residents with income that is up to a third more than the federal poverty level. GOP-led states split almost evenly in opting to take the funds to expand eligibility for their programs. States that didn’t have cited a concern about the impact on the federal budget and a desire to resist Mr. Obama’s health law.

Republican governors in states that expanded Medicaid have been telling their congressional delegations for months that repealing the health-care law without an adequate replacement would cost their budgets and hurt hospitals. While many say they support repealing Obamacare, they’ve advised a heavy dose of caution. Republican leaders in Washington are considering ending the Medicaid expansion, as well as setting per-person caps on federal funding of the program. “Governors know about 50 times more about Medicaid than anyone in Congress,” said Haley Barbour, the former Republican governor of Mississippi. “The idea that we’re going to repeal, repair, replace, redundant, whatever — the idea that we’re going to do that in a matter of weeks just ignores the difficulty of doing it,” Barbour said.

As the WSJ adds, republican senators are similarly split. Several of them, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) have said they would take cues from their respective states’ preferences. Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who opted to expand Medicaid despite legal challenges from GOP legislators in his state, met with Mr. Trump on Friday and is trying to rally fellow governors behind a compromise in which states agree to pare back eligibility and funding to residents making up to the poverty level. Residents above that threshold would lose Medicaid, he has said, but likely get subsidized private coverage. A handful of states—such as Wisconsin and Arkansas—already have systems in place along those lines.

On Friday, Kasich called House Republicans’ initial plans to replace the health-care law “inadequate.” Kasich, a former Republican presidential candidate, didn’t go into details during brief remarks to reporters after a meeting Friday with President Donald Trump. “To me, it’s not acceptable,” Kasich said. The governor, who opened Ohio’s Medicaid program to more low-income people under Obamacare, has advocated maintaining the Medicaid expansion. He has said the income limit for the program should be lower.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, also a Republican, said he was open to finding a way to help states that expanded the program. But he said it couldn’t be one that came at the expense of states such as his that didn’t do an expansion. “There were 18 governors that fought the ACA and we actually need to be rewarded for that, not punished,” he said. “I have not seen that plan yet.”

Saturday’s meeting is one of several taking place between governors and federal officials.

Governors have been meeting with Trump as well, Bloomberg adds. On Saturday, the president discussed the Affordable Care Act with Florida’s Rick Scott and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, both Republicans. The topic was “how best to solve the problems of Obamacare, with a special emphasis on the states role in health care,” according to information provided to reporters. Democratic governors are reaching out to Republican colleagues in states that expanded Medicaid and “now have a very sick feeling in their stomachs,” Malloy, who’s chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, told reporters Saturday at an earlier press conference. “I know that there is tremendous pressure on them, but we have to stand tall and make sure our fellow Americans have the coverage that they need.’’

The best summary of the current disarray, however, comes from Bloomberg which writes that former Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer, a Republican, asked why current governors aren’t coming together to develop a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

“For members of Congress, it’s primarily a political debate, not a health-care debate,” Geringer said. “Giving Congress cover is probably the best thing you can do right now.”

The full presentation governors were presented yesterday is below:

via http://ift.tt/2kZF53j Tyler Durden

In the previous episode of the currency wars, a few years ago, the Euro-Dollar exchange rate was in the spotlight. This has now completely disappeared to the background and whilst the countries of the Eurozone must be pretty happy with the weak currency (which boosts the export and increases the demand for domestically produced goods), the United States are less than happy as it weakens the position of the country on the export market.

Source: Tradingeconomics

You might have missed it when the mass media were falling over themselves to crucify president Trump, but we had the impression currency wars, and protecting the position of the United States on the world market were pretty high on his ‘to do list’ after decades of huge trade deficits. As you can see on the next image, there clearly is a huge discrepancy in the trade numbers between China and the United States. A substantial trade deficit, which has been nipped in the bud by China using their hard dollars to purchase US Treasuries.

Source: Danske Bank

Whereas the president was definitely pointing fingers at China during his election campaign, he seems to have been softer after a recent call with the Chinese president.

Does this mean the USA and China are now best buddies again? Probably not. It’s far more likely the president has realized he won’t be able to get much done when he gets in a direct confrontation with China. His staff has now launched a ‘test balloon’ and widened the scope of the currency manipulation investigation. Instead of singling out China, the White House will now be using a more general approach, and has even singled out Germany.

Source: Danske Bank

In order to be able to ‘sell’ this idea to concerned countries and entities, the Trump administration might present its own ‘alternative facts’, according to the Wall Street Journal. Even though the trade deficit between the United States and China is very clear in the previous image, it’s entirely possible the White House will introduce a new standard to calculate the trade deficit, to increase the deficit numbers.

According to a paper published by the Trump camp during the election campaign, China was really the main focus of the Economic plan. According to the paper; ‘In a world of freely floating currencies, the US dollar would weaken and the Chinese yuan would strengthen because the US runs a large trade deficit with China and the rest of the world. American exports to China would then rise, Chinese imports to America would fall, and trade should come back towards balance’.

Source: The Trump Economic Plan

That’s an absolutely accurate description, and even in the white paper, the Trump camp looked to things on a larger scale instead of focusing on China. Even the European Monetary Union and specifically Germany were singled out as examples of ‘currency manipulators’.

So don’t be surprised if the White House suddenly announces a plan to use a new method to calculate the trade deficits, in order to make the deficits appear to be larger than they really are. And this could absolutely re-shape the world and increase the impact from currency exchange rates. This doesn’t mean things will definitely change for the worse, but it’s always a very thin line when you’re dealing with powerful trading partners.

It will be difficult to create a win-win situation, but let’s hope it doesn’t turn into a lose-lose situation, as that could cripple the worldwide economy again.

>>> The only REAL currency is GOLD. Read our guide to gold right now! 

Secular Investor offers a fresh look at investing. We analyze long lasting cycles, coupled with a collection of strategic investments and concrete tips for different types of assets. The methods and strategies are transformed into the Gold & Silver Report and the Commodity Report.

Follow us on Facebook @SecularInvestor [NEW] and Twitter @SecularInvest

via http://ift.tt/2ldewTA Secular Investor

With little active US presence in the region (see latest naval map below), on Sunday Iran launched a massive naval drill at the mouth of the Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Ships, submarines and helicopters will take part in the drills across an area of about 2 million square kilometers (772,000 square miles) and marines will showcase their skills along Iran’s southeastern coast, the state news agency IRNA said even as tensions with the United States continue to build after U.S President Donald Trump put Tehran “on notice”.

Iran’s annual exercises will be held in the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, the Bab el-Mandab and northern parts of the Indian Ocean, to train in the fight against terrorism and piracy, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said, quoted by Reuters. Today’s drill marks the last phase of war games that started in 2016, Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported. The exercise, codenamed ‘Velayat 95’, kicked off in Iran’s south following an order from Iranian Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari.

Apart from the main drills, Iran’s Navy commando units are conducting special operations in the southeastern Makran region. Last June, Sayyari said that Tehran was planning to carry out 20 military drills before March 2017. Iranian officials insist that the war games do not violate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the nuclear deal between Iran and the Group 5+1 signed in January of 2016.

The UN nuclear watchdog said on Saturday that Iran has been found to be in full compliance with the nuclear deal, but the report comes against a backdrop of rising tensions between Tehran and Washington.

Earlier this month, then-US National Security Advisor Michael Flynn said that “Iran had been put formally on notice” after Tehran fired a ballistic missile. Later in February, President Trump tweeted that “Iran is playing with fire,” promising that he won’t be as “kind as [former President] Obama” and warned the Islamic Republic after its ballistic missile test on Jan. 29 that it was playing with fire and all U.S. options were on the table.

In response, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, blasted the US, saying Tehran remains “unmoved” by threats, but will use weapons “only in self-defense.” Last month, a US Navy destroyer fired warning shots at four Iranian military ships that were allegedly approaching them at high speed near the Strait of Hormuz.

The latest US naval deployment shows that while the South China Sea has been a recent focus of the US navy, the only US ship in the region is the LHD 8 Makin Island Amphibious Ready Group, although the George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier is currently headed for the region.

via http://ift.tt/2ld6t9y Tyler Durden