Forbes: Big Brother Has A New Face, And It’s Your Boss

Recently, the CVS Caremark Corporation began requiring employees to disclose personal health information (including weight, blood pressure, and body fat levels) or else pay an annual $600 fine. Workers must make this information available to the company’s employee “Wellness Program” and sign a form stating that they’re doing so voluntarily.

CVS argues this will help workers “take more responsibility for improving their health.” At one level, this makes a certain sense. Because the company is paying for their employees’ health insurance, they naturally prefer healthier workers. But at a deeper level, CVS’ action demonstrates a growing problem with our current system of employer-provided health insurance. If our bosses must pay for our health care, they will inevitably seek greater control over our lifestyles.

Although most Americans take it for granted that they receive health insurance through the workplace, this is an artifact of federal tax rules from World War II. When the U.S. government imposed wartime wage controls, employers could no longer compete for workers by offering higher salaries. Instead, they competed by offering more generous fringe benefits such as health insurance. In 1943, the IRS ruled that employees did not have to pay tax on health benefits provided by employers; in 1954, the IRS made this permanent.

The federal government thus distorted the health insurance market in favor of employer-based plans. If a company paid $100 for health insurance with pre-tax dollars, the employee enjoyed the full benefit. But if the employee received that $100 as salary, he could only purchase $50-70 of insurance after taxes. Over time, this tax disparity helped employer-based health insurance dominate the private insurance market. In 2008, over 90% of non-elderly Americans with private insurance received it through their workplace.

Hence, government policy artificially injects the employer into the relationship between a patient and the health insurance system. Normally, what a worker ate or whether he smoked at home would be of no concern to his boss (unless it affected job performance). But U.S. government policy makes it the employer’s business.

To make matters worse, ObamaCare reinforces this status quo. ObamaCare requires large employers to offer health insurance to workers (or else pay a penalty). As a result, more people are discussing how best to link employment to healthy behavior. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine recently featured a pair of high-profile editorials debating the merits of allowing companies to discriminate against smokers, “for their own good.”

Furthermore, ObamaCare pays government grants to encourage companies to implement these “wellness programs.” Hence, employers who wouldn’t otherwise concern themselves with workers’ lifestyles now have an incentive to do so in order to collect federal funds.

This is very well written and informative article.  For those that wonder why employers are involved in health insurance (and not home owners insurance, car insurance, etc.) it was simply because of government intervention.  Salary freezes caused the creation of “benefit packages.”

What do you think about government intervention like price freezes and the constitutionality of them?  Click below for the full article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2013/04/25/big-brother-has-a-new-face-and-its-your-boss/

Reuters: House Republican blocks consumer watchdog from testifying

A Republican lawmaker escalated a partisan fight over the new consumer protection watchdog on Monday, saying the bureau’s leader was not welcome to appear before a congressional panel that oversees financial regulators.

Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, a Republican who leads the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray could not appear before the panel because he has not been confirmed to his position by the U.S. Senate.

Lawmakers have battled over the bureau since it was created in 2010. President Barack Obama appointed Cordray in January 2012 to lead the consumer watchdog on a temporary basis, but Senate Republicans have refused to confirm him for a full term until Democrats agree to change the bureau’s structure.

The bureau’s critics argue a recent court ruling proves that Cordray’s position is invalid, though Democrats and the consumer watchdog dispute that conclusion because the case did not deal directly with him.

Cordray is scheduled to appear before a Senate committee on Tuesday to present a semi-annual report on the bureau’s activities, but Hensarling said he would not be asked to deliver the report to the House panel.

“The Committee on Financial Services stands ready to accept the testimony of the director of the CFPB on the semi-annual report as soon as an individual validly holds this position,” Hensarling said in letters to Cordray and to bureau general counsel Meredith Fuchs.

The CFPB, formed after the 2007-2009 crisis to protect Americans from financial scams, oversees mortgages, credit cards and student loans.

Obama used a controversial maneuver known as a “recess appointment” to install Cordray temporarily while most lawmakers were out of Washington, after Senate Republicans refused to confirm him to a full term. They say the bureau should be run by a bipartisan board and not a single director.

Republicans said Cordray’s appointment, as well as three additional appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, was invalid because lawmakers were not technically on recess at the time.

Click below for the full article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/23/us-financial-regulation-consumerbureau-idUSBRE93L1DM20130423

Motley Fool: Will Obama Really Confiscate Your Retirement Savings?

The budget proposal President Obama recently submitted had several provisions designed to increase government tax revenue. But one provision concerning retirement accounts triggered alarm bells for many Americans, raising fears that the government will confiscate your retirement savings.

Why people think confiscation is possible The provision in the Obama budget calls for tax laws to “prohibit individuals from accumulating over $3 million in tax-preferred retirement accounts.” Specifically, the budget refers to a complicated formula that involves figuring out how much money a person would need in order to buy an annuity contract that would guarantee annual payments to retirees of $205,000 for the rest of their lives. The proposal would raise $9 billion over the next 10 years, according to the budget’s forecast.

Immediately, many analysts jumped to the conclusion that the provision might involve actually taking away money from retirement accounts. CNBC’s Larry Kudlow described the measure in a special editorial in the New York Sun as an “incredible and arbitrary limit or tax on — or even possible confiscation of — IRA-type tax-advantaged savings account [emphasis added].”

Past confiscation fears Constitutionally, the idea that the government could simply confiscate your retirement savings without compensation goes directly against the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment. More skeptical analysts will note that retirement accounts make up trillions of dollars in assets that major banks Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  )  and Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC  )  and many other major financial institutions use to drive profits, giving them a huge incentive to use their political power to ensure that those assets don’t disappear instantaneously.

Yet this isn’t the first time that the issue of confiscation has come up. Even before President Obama was elected, Congress looked at a proposal to replace 401(k) plans with government-managed retirement accounts. Under the plan from Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School’s Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, these accounts would have had savers contributing 5% of their pay to a government-run retirement plan that would invest in bonds paying a fixed, guaranteed return over the rate of inflation. Ghilarducci’s plan did not propose confiscation, and as she described in an interview with Seattle talk show host Kirby Wilbur at the time, “Whatever you have in your 401(k) now will keep its tax break.”

Moreover, historians point to the 1933 executive order that required individuals to deliver gold coins, bullion, and certificates to banks in exchange for regular currency at a rate of $20.67 per ounce as being functionally equivalent to confiscation. With the government proceeding to devalue the dollar to $35 per gold ounce the following year, those who complied with the order suffered a substantial loss of purchasing power. Indeed, many gold investors use that same argument in arguing against bullion ETFs SPDR Gold Trust (NYSEMKT: GLD  ) , iShares Gold (NYSEMKT: IAU  ) , and iShares Silver Trust (NYSEMKT: SLV  ) , preferring instead to take physical possession of their gold and silver to ensure its safekeeping themselves.

Click below for the full article.

Motley Fool: Gold Fell to $1,400? Welcome to the New Gold Rush!

With everyone talking about how the great gold boom is over, that with the price of gold tumbling to $1,400 an ounce the back of the yellow metal as a safe-haven investment  has been broken, you might be surprised to learn there’s actually a new gold rush going on. With every drop in the price of gold (and silver, too), individuals are buying as much of the precious metal as they can.

According to the former assistant secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, the price collapse was an orchestrated attack on gold and silver coordinated by the Federal Reserve. The assault saw prices plunge an unprecedented 10% in one day at one point.  SPDR Gold Shares  (NYSEMKT: GLD  )  is now 12% lower from where it started April, while the iShares Silver Trust  (NYSEMKT: SLV  )  is down 18%.

For the tinfoil hat brigade, the collapse, coming as it did just days after President Obama met with the heads of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America, was enough of a nexus to indicate that this was a response to the threats posed by gold (and even Bitcoin) to the Federal Reserve system.

Gold Price in US Dollars Chart

Gold Price in US Dollars data by YCharts, Shaded area represents U.S. recession.

While I’m not sure I buy into conspiracy theories like that, I do know that if it’s true, then the Law of Unintended Consequences must surely be at play. There’s anecdotal evidence everywhere that despite the dumping of tons of paper gold assets on the market, demand for physical gold and silver has never been greater.

The new gold rush Bullion dealers are reporting they’re seeing individual purchases every bit as strong as occurred back in 2008. My bullion and coin dealer, JM Bullion, has upwards of a three-week delay in shipping American Silver Eagles, yet dealers everywhere are finding it increasingly difficult to get supply. Buyers from India to China are also racing to scoop up gold, with the China Gold Association reporting retail sales tripling in the country between April 15 and April 16, while Hong Kong and Macau have reported volume surges of as much as 150%.

Click below for the full article.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/21/gold-fell-to-1400-welcome-to-the-new-gold-rush.aspx

The Motley Fool: Obamacare and Sequestration Crush UnitedHealth

In this video, health-care analyst David Williamson discusses how Obamacare and sequestration are weighing on shares of insurer UnitedHealth (NYSE: UNH) . David breaks the managed care company’s quarter into Clint Eastwood-inspired good, bad, and ugly segments, helping investors in UnitedHealth, and related stocks, to find out everything they need to know from this bellwether’s earnings, and what to expect going forward.

When President Obama was re-elected, shares of UnitedHealth and other health insurers fell immediately. Is Obamacare a death knell for health insurers, or is the market missing out on some of the opportunities the law presents? In this brand new premium report on UnitedHealth, The Motley Fool takes a long term view, honing in on prospects for UnitedHealth in a post-Obamacare world. So don’t miss out — simply click here now to claim your copy today.


Click below for the full article.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/19/obamacare-and-sequestration-crush-unitedhealth.aspx

Business Insider: Here’s What We Know About The Sad State Of Wall Street Now That Earnings Are All In

In the last week or so every Wall Street bank has reported its earnings, so now  it’s time for the takeaways.

As usual the headlines of the week didn’t tell the whole story.

A quick glance looks like this: JP  Morgan beat estimates with a 33%  jump in profits, Morgan  Stanley‘s profits dipped but the bank still  beat expectations, Goldman  Sachs is taking champagne  showers, Bank  of America is eeking  out some kind of improvement, and Citi  is finally coming into its own after shedding a load of toxic assets.

Now for the news you can read between the lines.

Sales and trading is on life support, especially if you trade fixed income,  currencies or commodities. The traders at Goldman Sachs did better than everyone  else, but as CNBC’s  John Carney pointed out, they were still down 7% for the quarter.

Bank of America’s S&T revenue fell 20% (run by Tom Montag, who still gets  paid more than BofA CEO Brian  Moynihan) and Morgan Stanley got killed, with its revenue falling 42%.

On the other hand, Wealth Management, once one of the most boring sectors on  The Street, is carrying banks. This is especially true at Morgan Stanley (where  the unit is up 48% from this time last year) and Bank of America, where  assets under management grew $67.7  billion year-over-year to $745.3 billion.

Another business where Wall Street is making some cash is in debt  underwriting. Thanks to our current low yield environment, companies that were  unable to issue bonds before can do so now. The demand to buy these bonds is  there from clients searching for yield any way they can get it. Wall Street is here to help.

Click below for the full article.

http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-banks-q1-2013-earnings-2013-4

Motoramic: Why does the world’s largest automaker need $146.5 million from Kentucky?

On Friday, Toyota Chief Executive Akio Toyoda and Kentucky officials are expected to announce a $530 million expansion of Toyota’s sprawling Georgetown factory in the Bluegrass State so that it can build 50,000 Lexus ES sedans a year. In return for adding 570 permanent jobs, Kentucky will give Toyota a package of tax breaks and other incentives worth $146.5 million. Such deals are so common they rarely draw comment, but it’s worth asking: Why does the world’s largest automaker need a handout?

To get the incentives, Toyota promised to hire up to 570 new full-time workers at the Georgetown plant, along with 180 temporary workers. As the Louisville Courier-Journal reports, those permanent employees will be paid an average of $26 an hour in wages and benefits, a bit more than half of what long-time employees in Georgetown make.

It would be unfair to Toyota to single it out for taking a path trod so often by other automakers and corporations; in fact, it’s unheard of for an automaker from General Motors to Mitsubishi to expand a plant without some kind of government gift. Last December, The New York Times counted up 35 different grants to Ford from Kentucky alone between 2007 and 2010, totaling $307 million — which came even as the company cut jobs.

And those breaks pale to the deals automakers bargain for when they open new plants, with the current record held by Volkswagen, whose Tennessee factory came with incentives that total $577 million over several years. In return for those incentives, VW vowed to hire 2,000 full-time workers, for a cost of about $288,500 per job, a ratio that was the highest ever for a new auto assembly plant in the United States. When Kia opened its plant in Georgia in 2009, it did so only after driving a hard bargain for a $400 million incentive package, including everything from school property tax breaks to a free rail spur to ship cars from the factory.

State and local governments give automakers endless breaks for several reasons. A new auto plant often means additional jobs from parts suppliers on top of the add-on boost to the local economy. In tough times for American workers, automotive manufacturing jobs ofter stability and wages well above what’s available in most service industry careers. And many state officials fear being held to answer why a project was lost if the pot wasn’t sweet enough.

How do you feel about this government intervention?  Click below for the full article.

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/why-does-world-largest-automaker-146-million-kentucky-164424807.html

New York Times: Mortgage Relief Checks Go Out, Only to Bounce

A $300 relief check that bounced. The name and other information was redacted by The New York Times for privacy reasons.

When the bank account is running dry and the mortgage payment is coming due, the phrase “insufficient funds” is the last thing you want to hear.

Now imagine hearing those two words when trying to cash a long-awaited check from the same bank that foreclosed on you.

Many struggling homeowners got exactly that this week when they lined up to take their cut of a $3.6 billion settlement with the nation’s largest banks — lenders accused of wrongful evictions and other abuses.

Ronnie Edward, whose home was sold in a foreclosure auction, waited three years for his $3,000 check. When it arrived on Tuesday, he raced to his local bank in Tennessee, only to learn that the funds “were not available.”

Mr. Edward, 38, was taken aback. “Is this for real?” he asked.

It is unclear how many of the 1.4 million homeowners who were mailed the first round of payments covered under the foreclosure settlement have had problems with their checks. But housing advocates from California to New York and even regulators say that in recent days frustrated homeowners have bombarded them with complaints and questions.

The mishap is just the latest setback to troubled homeowners. It took more than two years to resolve a federal investigation into the foreclosure abuses. Even after the settlement in January, the checks were delayed for weeks.

—-

The Too Big to Fail Banks certainly didn’t seem to have trouble getting their checks from Hank Paulson or Ben Bernanke but it looks like these folks weren’t so fortunate.  Click below for the full article.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/victims-of-foreclosure-abuses-face-another-woe-bounced-checks/

 

The News Tribune Reports…. Goldman CFO: Still ‘very close’ to crisis

Goldman Sachs reported what seemed like a good first quarter, but analysts were more concerned about the bank’s future than the past three months. They peppered the chief financial officer with questions about impending regulations, and investors sent Goldman’s stock down even as other banks rose.

By the numbers, it was a decent quarter. Profit rose 5 percent and revenue was up 1 percent. Both beat analysts’ expectations. Bond underwriting soared 69 percent as issuers rushed to take advantage of low interest rates and a hearty appetite for corporate debt among investors. CEO Lloyd Blankfein described the results as “generally solid.”

Goldman’s leaders sounded a cautious tone on a conference call with analysts, however. They said investors were still nervous about the economy and that the bank would continue to focus on controlling costs.

Click below for the full article.

Wall St. Cheat Sheet: Are Your Income Taxes Fair?

With the official tax deadline in the rear view mirror, many Americans can now reflect on how much they paid Uncle Sam. If you feel like you are paying more than your “fair share,” you are not alone.

Unsurprisingly, Americans are losing faith in the fairness of income taxes. According to the latest Gallup survey, only 55 percent of Americans regard the income tax they pay as fair, the lowest reading since 2001. The results are based on Gallup’s Economy and Personal Finance poll and includes adults from all 50 states. It was conducted in the early part of April.

Click below for the full article.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/are-your-income-taxes-fair.html/?ref=YF