political

Affordable care act- In brief

 

The Supreme Court is due any day to render a ruling on the legality of the affordable care act. Although implementation and compliance with the entire act will not occur to 2014, many people in dire need of medical attention, have become eligible during the past year. Provisions such as the law’s ban on lifetime limits in health insurance policies and permitting individuals to be insured under their parents plans are already effective.

Although the law has numerous, complex components, below we attempt to break down the major provisions of the affordable care act.

The first and most significant is the individual mandate. The individual mandate requires all individuals with few exceptions to have health insurance by the end of 2014. Should the current law stand, approximately 30,000,000 more individuals will be covered by health care upon complete implementation.

implementation.

The second major aspect of the healthcare baggage guarantees insurance to everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions.

And the third major aspect of the law is an expansion of coverage. Young adults up to age 26 can be covered by their parent’s plans. Currently, most insurance companies determine much of the cost and types of treatments doctor can undertake. Under the act, the doctor has the sole discretion to determine what medical action is necessary.

 

The Daily Hit- June-23-2012

1 Romney’s claim that Obama did nothing on immigration until now.

Romney’s claim that Obama did ‘nothing on immigration’ until now

Posted by Josh Hicks at 11:00 AM ET, 06/20/2012
“Well, as you know, he [Barack Obama] was president for the last three and a half years, did nothing on immigration. Two years, he had a Democrats’ House and Senate, did nothing of permanent or long-term basis.”— Mitt Romney during interview with Bob Schieffer on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” June 17, 2012President Obama announced last Fridaythat his administration would no longer deport some illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. Former governor Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee, did not condemm or support Obama’s initiative, but criticized the president for failing to accomplish comprehensive immigration reform. Obama ”did nothing of permament or long-term basis,” he said.Obama promised such reform while making his bid for the White House in 2008, and he has indeed failed to deliver on that pledge. But how much is the president to blame for the government’s inaction? After all, it takes more than just the executive to implement anything more than piecemeal reforms, and even then the options are limited.

Let’s review what’s happened with immigration reform during Obama’s term to determine whether the president has truly done “nothing.”

 

The Facts

Obama pushed for passage of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act before Republicans won the House majority in November 2010. The bill would have made children of illegal immigrants — technically up to age 35 — eligible for residency if they attend college or serve in the military and don’t have criminal records.

Obama worked the phones to garner support for the measure, and a lame-duck House passed it by a vote of 216 to 198. But supporters in the Senate failed to produce the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster — all but five Republicans voted against cloture, as did four Democrats.

Obama urged Congress to form a bipartisan coalition to enact comprehensive immigration reform after the GOP takeover of Congress, but he never really laid out precise terms for a potential agreement.

After two years in office, Obama had achieved record-high deportation and increased the number of federal agents patrolling the border, but he had no agreement for dealing with the nation’s 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants, many of whom have lived most of their lives in the U.S.

Hispanic activists met with Obama in March 2010 to warn the president that he was losing credibility within their community due to increased deportations and a host of other issues. Obama expressed some frustration of his own, arguing that Republicans were holding up immigration reform. “I am not a king,” he said, according to an article by The Washington Post’s Peter Wallsten.

By July 2010, many of the activists seemed to have grown tired of excuses, as they began demonstrating in front of the White House — at least one who had met with the president in March was arrested.

Obama continued to plead with GOP lawmakers to enact bipartisan reform, but Republicans demanded stricter border enforcement first. By September 2011, the president’s approval rating among Hispanics dipped to 48 percent.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) reached out to immigrant activists in April to work with him on a potential bill — still unseen — that would have some of the same effects as the DREAM Act. Obama accused the GOP of hypocrisy, noting that Senate Republicans rejected the DREAM Act unanimously less than two years earlier.

Last week, the president finally used his unilateral executive authority — as kingly a move as the U.S. system allows — to accomplish at least a portion of the DREAM Act’s goals.

The Romney campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the GOP candidate’s remarks.

 

The Pinocchio Test

Obama expressed clear support for the DREAM Act when Democrats controlled the House and Senate, and the bill came within five votes of reaching his desk. Still, he failed to garner enough bipartisan support — including from his own party — to enact the measure.

The president continuously pushed for comprehensive immigration reform at that point, but supporting reform and brokering a deal are very different things. In fairness, Republicans made it pretty clear at that point that they had a limited tolerance for compromise.

Obama may well have issued his executive order to generate support from the Latino community less than five months before voters go to the polls. But Romney oversimplified the situation, implying that Obama didn’t try to enact immigration reform or give the matter any thought until the heat of an election prompted him into action. Romney also does not acknowledge that his own party played a key role in Obama’s failure to enact a long-term solution.

 

Two Pinocchios

(About our rating scale)

Companies’ Ills Did Not Harm Romney’s Firm

Evan McGlinn for The New York Times

The Boston headquarters of Bain Capital, a firm that usually found a way to make money from companies it controlled even when they ultimately went bankrupt.

By and
Published: June 22, 2012

Cambridge Industries, an automotive plastics supplier whose losses had been building for three consecutive years, finally filed for bankruptcy in May 2000 under a mountain of debt that had ballooned to more than $300 million.

Related

Dave Kaup/Reuters

Among the faltering companies Bain controlled: a GS Industries steel mill in Kansas City, Mo., whose entrance sign showed its decay,

Stephanie Strasburg for The New York Times

A crane belonging to a company that Bain bought toward the end of Mitt Romney’s tenure there.

Yet Bain Capital, the private equity firm that controlled the Michigan-based company, continued to religiously collect its $950,000-a-year “advisory fee” in quarterly installments, even to the very end, according to court documents.

In all, Bain garnered more than $10 million in fees from Cambridge over five years, including a $2.25 million payment just for buying the company, according to bankruptcy records and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Meanwhile, Bain’s investors saw their $16 million investment in Cambridge wiped out.

That Bain was able to reap revenue from Cambridge, even as it foundered, was hardly unusual.

The private equity firm, co-founded and run by Mitt Romney, held a majority stake in more than 40 United States-based companies from its inception in 1984 to early 1999, when Mr. Romney left Bain to lead the Salt Lake City Olympics. Of those companies, at least seven eventually filed for bankruptcy while Bain remained involved, or shortly afterward, according to a review by The New York Times. In some instances, hundreds of employees lost their jobs. In most of those cases, however, records and interviews suggest that Bain and its executives still found a way to make money.

Mr. Romney’s experience at Bain is at the heart of his case for the presidency. He has repeatedly promoted his years working in the “real economy,” arguing that his success turning around troubled companies and helping to start new ones, producing jobs in the process, has prepared him to revive the country’s economy. He has fended off attacks about job losses at companies Bain owned, saying, “Sometimes investments don’t work and you’re not successful.” But an examination of what happened when companies Bain controlled wound up in bankruptcy highlights just how different Bain and other private equity firms are from typical denizens of the real economy, from mom-and-pop stores to bootstrapping entrepreneurial ventures.

Bain structured deals so that it was difficult for the firm and its executives to ever really lose, even if practically everyone else involved with the company that Bain owned did, including its employees, creditors and even, at times, investors in Bain’s funds.

Bain officials vigorously disputed any notion that the firm had profited when its investors lost, arguing that a full accounting of their costs across their business would show otherwise. They also pointed out that Bain employees put their own money at risk in all of the firm’s deals.

“Bain Capital does not make money on investments when our investors lose money,” the company said in a statement. “Any suggestion to the contrary is based on a misleading analysis that examines the income of a business without taking account of expenses.”

To a large extent, however, this is simply the way private equity works, offering its practitioners myriad ways to extract income and limit their risk. Mr. Romney’s candidacy has helped cast a spotlight on an often-opaque industry.

In four of the seven Bain-owned companies that went bankrupt, Bain investors also profited, amassing more than $400 million in gains before the companies ran aground, The Times found. All four, however, later became mired in debt incurred, at least in part, to repay Bain investors or to carry out a Bain-led acquisition strategy.

Perhaps most revealing are the few occasions, like with Cambridge Industries, when Bain’s investors lost. Lucrative fees helped insulate Bain and its executives, records and interviews showed.

Piling On Debt

Having spun off from a management consulting firm, Bain has always been known for its data-driven, analytical approach. Under Mr. Romney, the firm scored some remarkable successes, enabling its investors — wealthy individuals and institutions like pension funds — to collect stellar returns.

The companies that fell into bankruptcy were clearly the exception, and the causes were also often multilayered. Some companies proved too troubled to rescue, and others were hit by broader economic or industrywide downturns.

In at least three of the seven bankruptcies, however, companies appear to have been made more vulnerable by debt taken on to return money to Bain and its investors in the form of dividends or share redemptions.

That was arguably the case with GS Industries, a troubled Midwest steel manufacturer that Bain acquired in 1993, investing $8.3 million. The private equity firm took steps to modernize the steelmaker. A year later, the company issued $125 million in debt, some of which was used to pay a $33.9 million dividend to Bain, securities filings show.

The private equity firm plowed an additional $16.2 million into the steelmaker, but when the industry experienced a downturn in the late 1990s, the company could not manage its heavy debt. It filed for bankruptcy in 2001, but Bain’s investors still earned at least $9 million.

Debt from acquisitions, usually part of a “roll-up” strategy of buying competitors, played a role in at least five of the seven bankruptcies The Times examined. In most of these cases, Bain investors garnered some initial gains before the companies faltered.

For example, after Bain acquired Ampad, a paper products company, in 1992, the company grew through a series of acquisitions. Sales jumped, but its debt climbed to nearly $400 million, and it found itself squeezed by “big box” office retailers. It filed for bankruptcy in 2000. Bain and its investors walked away with a profit of more than $100 million on their $5 million investment, on top of at least $17 million in fees for Bain itself, according to securities filings and investor prospectuses.

A similar phenomenon unfolded with DDi, a Bain-owned circuit board maker that expanded aggressively in the late 1990s. Sales soared, but so did its debt. The bursting of the tech bubble forced it to scale back. It filed for bankruptcy in 2003. The gains for Bain’s investors easily exceeded $100 million. Bain also collected more than $10 million in fees.

Substantial Fees

The numerous fees collected by private equity firms have been a frequent lightning rod for the industry. First, the firms charge their investors a percentage of the fund as a management fee, meant to cover its overhead. During Mr. Romney’s tenure, this was initially 2.5 percent and then dropped to 2 percent. Private equity firms also collect transaction or deal fees, ostensibly for advisory work, from companies they buy. These fees are generally collected for major transactions, like the purchase of another company, a public stock offering or even the initial acquisition of the company. A third fee stream comes from annual monitoring or advisory fees that portfolio companies typically pay to their owners, the buyout firms.

These fees can be substantial. In the case of Dade International, a medical supply company in which Bain acquired a stake in 1994, Bain and other investment firms piled up nearly $90 million in fees over seven years. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003 but not before it had borrowed heavily to pay $420 million to Bain and other investors several years earlier.

In 1998 alone, Mr. Romney’s final full year at Bain, The Times was able to identify roughly $90 million in fees collected by the firm across its various funds, a figure that is probably low because most companies in Bain’s portfolio did not have to file financial disclosures.

These fees covered Bain’s expenses — like rent, salaries and lawyers — and the bulk of the remaining money was awarded to Bain employees as annual bonuses.

Bonuses were relatively small some years, like from 1989 to 1991, when the savings and loan crisis and other events slowed business. In that period, Bain managing directors made roughly $300,000 to $400,000 a year, mainly from their salaries, excluding gains from investments, according to an executive familiar with Bain’s compensation. By the mid-1990s, as Bain grew, managing directors’ annual incomes, again excluding investment returns, had swollen to $3 million to $5 million, mainly thanks to bonuses derived from fees.

Bonuses were not the main drivers of the immense wealth accumulated by Mr. Romney and other Bain executives. That came from their share of Bain’s “carried interest,” the firm’s cut of its funds’ investment profits, as well as the returns from personal investments in Bain deals.

Bain officials insist that fees were never a way for the company to garner much in the way of profits and pointed out fee structures for every fund are agreed-upon in advance by investors. They said fees supported the firm’s staff-intensive approach to managing companies. Totaling up the hours Bain employees put into deals at standard consulting rates, they said, would far exceed what the firm actually collected. They said fees also covered the costs of hundreds of deals researched every year and not pursued or completed.

Investors have succeeded in the past decade in pressing private equity firms for a greater share of these fees. In 2009, a trade group representing institutional investors issued guidelines it believed firms should follow, including turning over all advisory and deal fees to investors, also known as limited partners. “The battle over fees is right now going in the limited partners’ direction,” said Steven N. Kaplan, a University of Chicago finance professor.

Bain began splitting some fees with its investors in 2000. In the firm’s newest fund, Bain officials said they would funnel all deal fees to their limited partners.

Bain prides itself on the personal money its employees put into deals, saying its co-investment rate is among the highest in the industry. The percentage during Mr. Romney’s tenure sometimes ran to nearly 30 percent but was usually less, according to records and interviews.

“We are collectively the single largest investor in every portfolio company and every fund,” the company’s statement said. “When our portfolio companies grow and perform, investors and Bain Capital do well. In rare instances when a business fails, Bain Capital employees share in the negative economic consequences of those losses.”

Offsetting Losses

When deals sour, however, fees can provide a hedge.

Toward the end of Mr. Romney’s tenure, Bain bought Anthony Crane, a crane rental company, which then acquired a slew of smaller competitors, financed by debt. But a building slowdown hit the company hard, and it filed for bankruptcy in 2004, wiping out $25.6 million from Bain’s investors, along with $9.5 million from Bain employees. The firm, however, collected $12 million in fees over the life of the deal.

Bain officials maintained they still lost money on Crane because it also cost them $5.1 million in carried interest that they otherwise would have garnered from gains in the rest of the fund.

When Bain bought a troubled chain of maternity stores called Mothercare in 1991, its investors put $1.24 million into the deal. Bain repositioned the company and upgraded its merchandise, but the stores still struggled. Bain offloaded the chain in 1993 at a total loss, and the new owners put it into bankruptcy. Bain still collected $1.5 million in fees while it owned the company, bankruptcy records show.

In the case of Cambridge Industries, Bain first acquired a stake in the manufacturer of plastic automotive parts in 1995. Bain employees personally invested $2.2 million, according to bankruptcy records, alongside $15.7 million from outside investors.

Bain immediately collected $2.25 million from Cambridge as a transaction fee for investing in the company. Cambridge then acquired several companies in rapid succession, and each time, Bain earned 0.75 percent of the purchase price as a transaction fee. The rest of Bain’s $10 million in fees came through advisory fees and payments for a debt refinancing completed by Cambridge in 1997.

By then, interest payments from the company’s expansion were outstripping operating income. As part of the refinancing, aimed at lowering interest payments, Cambridge repaid $17 million it owed to a debt fund run by Bain. This involved paying it a $2 million prepayment penalty.

Cambridge was finally forced into bankruptcy in 2000, when Bain declined to provide the company with an infusion of capital needed to fulfill a major new order, according to former company officials. During bankruptcy proceedings, lawyers for some of Cambridge’s creditors leveled scathing criticism at Bain, zeroing in on the fees extracted while they said Cambridge was insolvent, as well as the prepayment to Bain’s debt fund.

Eventually, Bain settled the dispute by paying $1.5 million to the bankruptcy trustee.

“We have been unable to identify what, if any, ‘reasonably equivalent value’ the Company received in exchanges for these exorbitant fees,” Michael Stamer, a lawyer for the unsecured creditors committee, wrote to Bain’s lawyers. “It appears, instead, these fees were nothing more than a device used by Bain to provide a return on its equity.”

 

Mike McIntire contributed reporting.

A version of this article appeared in print on June 23, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Fees Flowed to Romney’s Firm As Companies It Owned Failed.

Mitt Romney Could Benefit From GOP Engagement, Pew Research Poll Says

Posted: 06/23/2012 8:56 am Updated: 06/23/2012 10:38 am

 

 

The Daily Hit- June 22, 2012

 

Outsourcing pioneer Mitt Romney is not fit to talk about job creation

Posted by
Elizabeth Chan

If you read only two things today, make sure they are this report from the Washington Post and Jeffrey Liebman’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

Mitt Romney has spent the past six years traveling the country and vowing to the American people that as president, he’ll fight for good, middle-class jobs. But that’s just a load of empty promises. As Liebman points out, Romney doesn’t even have a jobs plan—only a job-destroying budget plan.

“What would Gov. Romney do to create jobs now? In a word, nothing. In fact, the proposals he has put forward would slow the recovery, reversing the gains we have made since the recession ended.

“Gov. Romney himself has acknowledged that excessive spending cuts can have a damaging impact on the economy. …

“But his own budget plan—as well as the House Republican budget he has said he is ‘very supportive of’—requires immediate cuts that would significantly reduce domestic spending. If Gov. Romney is correct about the impact of spending cuts, then the House budget, which cuts spending by $187 billion in 2013 relative to the president’s budget, would reduce economic output by about 1%. That would shrink employment next year by more than one million jobs.”

Shrinking employment—now there’s a subject Romney knows a thing or two about. The Washington Post reports that during his oft-touted time in the private sector, Romney was a “pioneer” in the practice of sending good American jobs to places like China and India.

Could this be why Romney supports tax policies that reward companies that outsource our jobs overseas?

“During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. …

“But a Washington Post examination of securities filings shows the extent of Bain’s investment in firms that specialized in helping other companies move or expand operations overseas. While Bain was not the largest player in the outsourcing field, the private equity firm was involved early on, at a time when the departure of jobs from the United States was beginning to accelerate and new companies were emerging as handmaidens to this outflow of employment.”

So, to sum it up: Romney is campaigning on job creation, but he has no jobs plan. He does have a budget plan that would kill a million American jobs as well as a 15-year record of loading up companies with debt, sending those companies into bankruptcy, destroying middle-class jobs and communities—and sending American jobs overseas. And let’s not forget that banner 47th place in job creation when he tried to apply his private-sector experience to governing.

It’s clearer by the day: Romney is not fit to talk about job creation.

 

Jeffrey Liebman: Republicans Are Blocking Obama’s Jobs Plan

Nine months ago, the president outlined his American Jobs Act and independent economists said it would create as many as 1.9 million jobs.

By JEFFREY B. LIEBMAN

As the economy continues its recovery from the worst downturn in three generations, it’s clear that, once again, decisive action is needed to create jobs now and lay the foundation for stronger, shared economic growth.

There is a strong consensus about what the immediate challenges facing our economy are: first and foremost, a continued lack of demand as a lingering result of the recession. We also know the areas where this has caused the most damage, including deep state and local government layoffs and continued weakness in the construction sector. And we have a good idea of what tools work best to address these problems.

The president has put forward a plan that uses exactly these tools. Nine months ago, President Obama outlined his American Jobs Act and independent economists said it would create as many as 1.9 million jobs. While Congress has acted on some of his proposals—most notably, extending payroll tax cuts that provide $1,000 for an average family—it left more than a million jobs on the table.

Related Video

Jeffrey Liebman, an economic advisor to President Obama’s campaign, on how President Obama’s jobs plan would create jobs. Photo: Getty Images

One of the largest drags on our economy has been the layoffs of public employees like teachers, firefighters and police officers due to state budget cuts. Even as American businesses have created nearly 4.3 million private-sector jobs over the past 27 months, state and local government employment has fallen by 450,000 jobs during that time. But Congress has failed to act to put hundreds of thousands of teachers and first-responders back to work.

Likewise, the crash of the housing markets continues to take a toll on construction workers. There are still two million fewer construction workers employed than when the recession started in 2007. Yet Congress has failed to act on the president’s plan to put construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads, bridges and airports.

Both of these steps would strengthen our economy now and for years to come. Economists Raj Chetty, John Friedman and Jonah Rockoff have shown that in a single year of teaching a great teacher raises the lifetime earnings of her students by $250,000 relative to an average teacher—so laying off some of our most promising teachers is tragic. Infrastructure boosts productivity and economic growth, yet we are spending less than half as much on infrastructure as Europe does as a share of the economy, and only a quarter of what China spends.

President Obama would take other steps as well: cut taxes for small businesses that add jobs or increase wages, make it easier for homeowners to refinance their mortgages, and put veterans back to work. The president has also put forward a budget that would reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade and stabilize our debt-to-GDP ratio. But he would achieve that deficit reduction while continuing to invest in education, infrastructure and innovation.

This approach stands in stark contrast to that of Gov. Mitt Romney. What would Gov. Romney do to create jobs now? In a word, nothing. In fact, the proposals he has put forward would slow the recovery, reversing the gains we have made since the recession ended.

Martin Kozlowski

Gov. Romney himself has acknowledged that excessive spending cuts can have a damaging impact on the economy. In May, he said, “if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression.”

But his own budget plan—as well as the House Republican budget he has said he is “very supportive of”—requires immediate cuts that would significantly reduce domestic spending. If Gov. Romney is correct about the impact of spending cuts, then the House budget, which cuts spending by $187 billion in 2013 relative to the president’s budget, would reduce economic output by about 1%. That would shrink employment next year by more than one million jobs.

The rest of Gov. Romney’s economic agenda—$5 trillion in deficit-increasing tax cuts with no plausible path to pay for them, divesting from clean energy, and repealing rules of the road for Wall Street—would almost certainly undermine confidence in the U.S. economy and reduce employment further. But even if you dismiss this risk, what is clear is that there is no plausible argument for how Mr. Romney’s policies would address the jobs crisis we face today.

President Obama’s ideas are not radical ones. Many of them, like investing in infrastructure, encouraging clean energy and allowing businesses to expense new investments, were supported by Gov. Romney in the past. But, as a presidential candidate, he has decided to reposition himself as a believer in the same excessive budget cutting that has choked off the economic recovery in Europe and plunged that continent into another economic crisis.

Republicans in Congress are the only thing that is preventing these measures from putting more Americans back to work right now. If Mitt Romney really wanted to get job growth going, he would tell his Republican colleagues to stop blocking the president’s proposals.

Mr. Liebman is a professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and a senior economic policy adviser to the Obama campaign. From 2009 to 2010, he was executive associate director and then acting deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.

A version of this article appeared June 22, 2012, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Republicans Are Blocking Obama’s Jobs Plan.

Join the discussion