AMERICAN ICONIC COMPANIES CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE
No less than the iconic Procter & Gamble joins the ranks of large American companies whose growth is stalled, and whose earnings must come from cost-cutting, not innovative growth. Add McDonald's, WalMart, IBM, Coke and a host of others, and the problem becomes clear. Big companies are struggling to find or create growth in those days of slow population growth, slow economic growth and economic uncertainty. The story in the link above ran the day that the economic GDP growth of 2.3% for the most recent quarter was being "celebrated." How sad! Consumer confidence on that day dropped…a lot.
=================
WHEN GROWTH IS ELUSIVE
Where does this lead us? To the choice of which kind of economic system we want in the USA; what kind of leaders we choose; and what expectations we should have. Innovative small and mid-size companies are engines of growth, and these companies can grow into large ones. That is, IF they are not smothered, stifled and crippled by bureaucratic regulations, promulgated by career bureaucrats who seem to answer to no one…and can…with a few key strokes, cost companies and industries billions of dollars.
=================
WHO SHOULD YOU SUPPORT FOR THE GOP NOMINATION?
This quiz tells you by your answers who should be your Presidential candidate--Try it to see which candidate you agree with on various subjects.
It is very well done and worth your time--and it will make you think!
(Disclosure: Marco Rubio was my early choice and he came out on top of my quiz at 95%, and all I did was answer the questions honestly. See how yours comes out.)
=================
WHAT WILL NEXT WEEK'S "DEBATE" ACCOMPLISH?
It will allow the ten top polling candidates to showcase their positions and "calm under fire"/questioning. Nobody knows how Donald Trump will behave, but it is easy to predict. He won't behave. He'll call them all out at "wusses" unable or unwilling to do the obvious things necessary to lead America back to "greatness" again. And he will be right in most cases. The other debaters will need to decide whether to challenge Trump ("the devil is in the details"--it's not hard to day "what to do," it's hard to figure out "how to do it" amidst nearly dysfunctional government polarization and a president who will oppose GOP moves at every opportunity. Debates are also great places to screw up (ask Rick Perry). As far as I am concerned, I am less worried about the omission of "do-overs" like Perry and Santorum, than I am the loss of fresh ideas (but less qualified candidates) from voices like Carly Fiorina and maybe even Ben Carson…
=================
I WISH….FOR THIS
What's the best things the GOP debaters could do? Every one of them should attack (not each other, but) the Obama/Hillary camp's liberal positions and point out every lying, over-reaching, misstatement, and delusion the two of them embody….and remind the American people that if they want to be lied to, and become "wards of the government" in an economic slavery, then the Democratic candidates are their best choice. If, however, they want a free, prosperous and strong America, then the GOP candidates on the stage have the right answers…and their differences are just nuances of the same solution--one that was proven to work in the past. There's overwhelming evidence that the Democratic leaders and policies do not work…and have not worked…socially or economically… (Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, etc.)
=================
=================
IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TRACKING HILLARY'S INFREQUENT PRONOUNCEMENTS (A NEW NAME FOR LIES)
"HILLARY'S HANDOUTS" should be her campaign theme. She's trying to out-Obama, Barack Obama, because that is the only way she can keep his coalition of dependent, ill-informed and easily bought voters…along with the liberal elite…needed to win the next election. Somehow, getting our first black president hasn't convinced enough Americans, then she will rely on being the first woman president. Strange how neither one speaks about qualifications, integrity, readiness for the job, etc. I guess a lot of voters don't care, and others are sold on her BS. The question is how far down this kind of leadership must drag America before some large group of Americans screams "ENOUGH" and then goes and votes a new, better leader into the White House.
=================
HERE'S ONE THAT WILL SHOW YOU HOW MUCH CONFIDENCE YOU SHOULD HAVE IN THE IRAN AGREEMENT--AS IF KERRY ISN'T WEAK ENOUGH?
A long time friend sent me this: I wondered who was the top Kerry negotiator. Her name is Wendy Sherman. Here are her credentials:
Sherman, a former social worker, also served as the director for EMILY's List, a political fundraising group aimed at getting pro-choice Democratic women elected. She first served in the State Department under the Clinton administration. She was appointed to her current position in 2011 by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Washington (CNN)A top State Department official -- Wendy Sherman -- will depart following the completion of the Iran nuclear talks, a source confirms to CNN. Sherman has been the lead U.S. negotiator with Iran as the Obama administration has pursued a nuclear agreement. "Wendy has been an absolutely critical member of my team, most notably in her work spearheading the nuclear negotiations with Iran, but on nearly every important issue that has crossed my desk," said Secretary of State John Kerry in a statement provided to CNN.
=================
IF THAT IS NOT BAD ENOUGH, CONSIDER THIS ONE:
Right. John Kerry's daughter is married to an Iranian with close ties to the very same people Kerry was negotiating with. Can you spell "conflict of interest?" No wonder the Iranians got everything they wanted and more. Kerry is not too smart, and he wasn't about to get tough with "family ties" involved, and Obama is a Muslim sympathizer of the highest magnitude--so what do you expect would happen? (I can only pray that it turns out better than it looks right now. Maybe it is better than launching bombs against Iranian nuke plants…but what happens when the Iranian mullahs are the bomb throwers?)
MORE ON THE IRAN DEAL
=================
I WARNED ABOUT THIS ON BRENNERBRIEF.COM MONTHS AGO--HACKING INTO CARS CONTROLS (ARE AIRLINERS NEXT?)
Networked computers in cars make them a hacker's playground. That means these great self-driving cars everyone is testing might be a disaster waiting to happen--until or unless automakers figure out how to secure the internal networked computer systems--if ever.
(This story is about GM's OnStar…but everyone is vulnerable to some extent.)
Hacker shows he can locate, unlock and remote start GM vehicles
A white hat hacker has posted a video demonstrating how he can use mobile device
to intercept GM's OnStar telematics mobile app to unlock and remote start a
vehicle.
=================
AMERICA'S GROWTH PROBLEM--IS A GLOBAL GROWTH PROBLEM
When the American economy is growing at 2% (at best--albeit the GDP metric is badly flawed), then it is very difficult to generate revenue to fuel government growth in a government that is already way too big. American population growth is also lagging…and the birth rates do not hold promise for the future growth. Immigrants might very well hold the key to America's growth--which is why getting the immigration issues under control is so important. Legal Hispanic immigrants are both productive and prolific. While Trump's rash statements about Mexican border immigrants are at least partially true--hanging those labels on an entire group of immigrants is a big mistake. At least three of the candidates: Bush, Rubio and Cruz, are likely to be both sympathetic to and supported by more Hispanic voter. I simply don't trust or like Cruz--too extreme and self-serving. Bush is better. Rubio is best…of this candidate group and deserves a spot in the GOP ticket--paired with a pragmatic, "get it done" former Governor (Walker? Kasich? Christie?… & not Huckabee, Jindal or Perry!).
=================
THERE IS ALWAYS MORE…BUT IT'S TIME TO STOP AND SEND.
ENJOY THE SUMMERTIME.
BEST, JOHN
=================
DESPITE INFORMATION CITED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA…THESE FACTS SAY HE IS MISSTATING THINGS (AGAIN)
The Unaffordable Care Act: Premiums are spiking around the country. Obama is in denial. July 10, 2015 6:58 p.m. ET
The Affordable Care Act was supposed to make insurance, well, more affordable. But now hard results are starting to emerge: premium surges that often average 10% to 20% and spikes that sometimes run as high as 50% or 60% or more from coast to coast. Welcome to the new abnormal of ObamaCare.
This summer insurers must submit rates to state regulators for approval on the ObamaCare exchanges in 2016—and even liberals are shocked at the double-digit requests, or at least the honest liberals are. Under ObamaCare, year-over-year premium increases above 10% must also be justified to the Health and Human Services Department, and its data base lists about 650 such cases so far.
In a study across 45 states, the research outfit Health Pocket reports that mid-level Exclusive Provider Organization plans are 20% more expensive in 2016 on average. HMOs are 19% more expensive, and for all plan types the average is 14%.
President Obama dropped by Nashville last week to claim Tennessee as a state where “the law has worked better than we expected” and “actually ended up costing less than people expected,” so let’s test the reality of those claims. As a baseline, in 2015 premium increases for Tennessee plans ranged from 7.5% to 19.1%.
For 2016 BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee—one of the state’s two major insurers—is requesting a 36.3% increase. One product line from Community Health Alliance Mutual is rising 32.8%, while another from Time Insurance Co. hits 46.9%. Offerings from Cigna,Humana and UnitedHealthcare range from 11% to 18%. If this means ObamaCare is working better than the President expected, then what, exactly, was he expecting?
Underlying health costs continue to rise, but this trend is merely about 3.5% to 7% depending on the state. Health plan profits are capped by ObamaCare price controls, so don’t blame corporate greed either. In a rational market, premiums wouldn’t be soaring in a single year by 49.1%-65% (Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Mexico) or 40.6%-58.4% (Geisinger Health Plans of Pennsylvania).
The detailed, fact-heavy actuarial filings justifying these increases show that they result from ObamaCare’s political regulations. The law bans insurers from charging people prices linked to their health risks in order to force the young and healthy to cross-subsidize their elders. But if premiums don’t cover medical claims, then premiums must rise to fund these cost transfers.
After the first two years of ObamaCare in 2014 and 2015, insurers have more experience with the demographics and expenses of the new enrollees. They seem to be older and have more chronic conditions like diabetes or congestive heart failure than predicted. There are also fewer than expected.
Among those eligible for the ObamaCare exchanges—meaning they lack coverage through a job, spouse or another government program—only about a third have signed up, according to HHS. The number of truants—despite the individual mandate penalty-tax—increases with income and as ObamaCare’s subsidies phase out.
The subsidies are most generous between 100% and 150% above the poverty line, where an ObamaCare policy is essentially free. Some 76% of eligible individuals at that level are enrolled, report the consultants at Avalere Health. But enrollment drops to 41% between 151% and 200% of poverty, and then to 30% at 201%-250%. At 251%-300%, the share is 20%, and 16% for 301%-400%.
In other words, the more lower- and middle-income people must pay for ObamaCare with their own money, the less likely they are to participate. They are concluding that ObamaCare plans—with their overly rich mandated benefits, narrow physician networks, and hidden income redistribution—do not offer a good value for the price. This is not a formula for healthy insurance markets.
These rate hikes aren’t final, and some may be rejected by state insurance commissioners. In Tennessee, Mr. Obama encouraged regulators to exert such political control. But a business can’t continue to pay more than $1 for every $1 of revenue forever, and ongoing insurance volatility and rising health industry consolidation may ensure that the 2016 premium blast is not a one-time event.
This is a no-excuses moment for liberals. In 2014-15 they tried to deny rate shock by claiming pre-ObamaCare plans couldn’t be compared to compliant ones, but these are the apples of 2015 compared to the apples of 2016.
This is also a political opening for Republican presidential contenders beyond the “repeal ObamaCare” slogan. Even with subsidies, beneficiaries are bound to notice these price increases. Incomes aren’t rising at 10%, much less 40%. Maybe the entitlement isn’t as entrenched as Washington wisdom suggests.
More to the point, U.S. health care is becoming a government-directed network of oligopolies dominated by huge, politically protected incumbents. The insurers would much rather pass on premium increases to consumers who have no other options than challenge the regulations that caused the increases.
An alternative GOP agenda that promises more patient choice and control, and more competition and innovation, might well gain popular support—even among the voters ObamaCare was supposed to help.
Comments