<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Business &#38; MoneyCategory: Health Care &#124; Business &#38; Money &#124; TIME.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://business.time.com/category/health-care/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://business.time.com</link>
	<description>The latest news and commentary on the economy, the markets, and business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 06:18:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='business.time.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://business.time.com/osd.xml" title="Business &#38; Money" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://business.time.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Please Don&#8217;t Use a &#8216;Best Places to Retire&#8217; List to Decide Where to Retire</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/05/13/please-dont-use-a-best-places-to-retire-list-to-decide-where-to-retire/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/05/13/please-dont-use-a-best-places-to-retire-list-to-decide-where-to-retire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 12:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martha C. White</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Decision Making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AARP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Council on the Aging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Dakota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retirement community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sales taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=79540</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It can be confusing making sense of the many “best places to retire” lists out there. In fact, it&#8217;s probably best to eye these lists with extreme skepticism &#8212; unless you really do want to spend your golden years in (gulp) frigid North Dakota. What with all the &#8220;best places to retire&#8221; lists in circulation, you&#8217;d think there would be some consensus about the top spots to kick back in retirement. Yet these lists are literally all over the map, and often contradictory. Bankrate.com&#8217;s new roundup ranking the &#8220;surprisingly best&#8221; states for retirement touts the Dakotas, West Virginia, and Mississippi — and ranks Oregon dead last in its corresponding &#8220;worst places&#8221; list. A Forbes list, on the other hand, included Medford, Ore., in its roundup of the best places to retire in 2013, and CNN/Money listed Portland, Ore., in a roundup published last fall. These discrepancies are the rule rather than the exception, partially because the rankings emphasize different criteria. Some lists emphasize college towns, whose populations tend to skew young, while others put a premium on communities with a lot of senior residents. Many publications advise looking at local tax rates, but they clash when it comes to deciding whether income, property or sales tax is most important. Here’s the good news: you can probably ignore them all. As Malcolm Gladwell pointed out two years ago in the New Yorker, rankings fail when they bite off more than they can chew. A “best of” list can aim to evaluate a broad set of criteria or a large number of contenders, but not both. “It’s an act of real audacity when a ranking system tries to be comprehensive and heterogeneous,” Gladwell wrote. Gladwell was critiquing the way college rankings are conducted, but the principle is the same when it comes to cars, restaurants and where to spend your retirement years. (MORE: Um, You&#8217;ve Actually Been Able to Order Authentic Viagra Online for Years) The way &#8220;best places to retire&#8221; lists are graded often misses the point: they don’t tell you much about<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=79540&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/05/13/please-dont-use-a-best-places-to-retire-list-to-decide-where-to-retire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Retirement</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/retirement-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/retirement1.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/retirement1.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/retirement1.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">retirement</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9a5a9e4f28beb5afb59b1202632d219a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">marthacwhite</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Um, You&#8217;ve Actually Been Able to Order 100% Legit Viagra Online for Years</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/05/08/um-youve-actually-been-able-to-order-100-legit-viagra-online-for-years/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/05/08/um-youve-actually-been-able-to-order-100-legit-viagra-online-for-years/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 09:45:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Tuttle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[E-commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Odd Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterfeit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CVS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drugstore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FamilyMeds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pfizer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pharmacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prescription Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viagra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VIPPS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Walgreens]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=79492</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[News broke this week that for the first time ever, the drug manufacturer Pfizer has started selling Viagra directly to patients via the Internet. The pitch is that the new online sales channel will help men avoid the embarrassment of picking up the erectile dysfunction drug in person, as well as the possibility of buying counterfeit drugs from a sketchy website. The Associated Press story on Pfizer&#8217;s news starts as follows: Men who are bashful about needing help in the bedroom no longer have to go to the drugstore to buy that little blue pill. While most of the coverage has focused on Pfizer&#8217;s innovation as a means to avoid embarrassment, two key facts are being glossed over: 1) It&#8217;s been possible to buy guaranteed authentic Viagra online for years; and 2) Pfizer isn&#8217;t really selling drugs directly to customers. On Monday, Pfizer announced that it would start selling Viagra to customers via its site, Viagra.com. In actuality, the orders won&#8217;t being filled directly by Pfizer, but through drugstore giant CVS. What&#8217;s more, even before Pfizer&#8217;s announced partnership with CVS, it was (and still remains) possible to buy Viagra and most other prescription drugs without going to the drugstore. (MORE: Casino Revenues Are Up in 2012 &#8212; Thanks in Part to Gambling in Kansas) &#8220;With Viagra home delivery, men with ED can submit a new Viagra prescription or refill an existing one, estimate their co-pay in real-time, and check on the status of their order, from the privacy of their homes,&#8221; a Pfizer release explains. What&#8217;s being mostly overlooked is that men were able to get essentially these same services before Pfizer&#8217;s big announcement. Buying Viagra online is as simple as getting a valid prescription and placing an order through a legitimate pharmacy website, such as FamilyMeds.com, Walgreens.com, or, for that matter, CVS.com. So the idea that Pfizer&#8217;s service is somehow breaking ground by allowing customers to order prescription drugs &#8220;from the privacy of their homes&#8221; is silly. The only thing new here is that the drug manufacturer is getting<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=79492&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/05/08/um-youve-actually-been-able-to-order-100-legit-viagra-online-for-years/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Health Care</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/health-care/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f8de938518e7b986d552694ed99aa54d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bradtuttle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why We&#8217;re Spending So Much on Botox, Makeup and Facelifts</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/02/27/why-were-spending-so-much-on-botox-makeup-and-facelifts/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/02/27/why-were-spending-so-much-on-botox-makeup-and-facelifts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martha C. White</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Career Strategies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Careers & Workplace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Odd Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Work/Life Balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Botox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cosmetic surgery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facelift]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plastic surgery]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=72827</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last year, Americans spent more on products and procedures to make our faces look better. The reason? Well, it may seem counterintuitive, but experts say the lackluster economy is part of the reason for our collective vanity.  The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) says that while total cosmetic surgeries fell by 2% last year, the number of what they call “minimally invasive” procedures rose by 6%. The most popular of these were Botox and Dysport (the brand names for botulinum toxin) injections, followed by soft tissue filler injections, chemical peels, laser hair removal, and microdermabrasion. In 2011, the number of both surgeries and minimally invasive procedures rose, although the uptick in more expensive operations was the smaller increase of the two. “Facial rejuvenation procedures, both surgical and minimally-invasive, experienced the most growth in 2012,” an ASPS press release states. That includes a record-high 6.1 million botulinum toxin injections to freeze our frown lines and crows’ feet. And although the overall number of surgeries fell, the ASPS says demand for facelifts and eyelid surgeries rose 6% and 4%, respectively. (MORE: Plastic Surgery as Economic Indicator) The so-called “lipstick effect” is something consumer psychologists trot out as soon as the economy heads south: The theory goes that we cut back on big-ticket spending, but buy ourselves little indulgences as consolation prizes. Instead of buying a new suit, for example, maybe we’ll buy that designer’s cologne. Instead of a pair of pricey pumps, we’ll settle for the aforementioned lipstick. Or, in this case, we’ll get Botox instead of a pricier nose job or tummy tuck. Maybe we can start calling it the “injection effect” instead. Unsurprisingly, wealthier Americans seem more willing to keep spending in order to look good. A new survey by Unity Marketing, which examines the spending patterns of affluent Americans, found that the rich are becoming more cautious and keeping those platinum cards in their wallets. But president Pam Danzinger says there are a few spending category outliers. For instance, spending on beauty services increased a whopping 26.5% last<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=72827&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/02/27/why-were-spending-so-much-on-botox-makeup-and-facelifts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Odd Spending</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/saving-spending/odd-spending/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/dv1768028.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/dv1768028.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/dv1768028.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dv1768028</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/9a5a9e4f28beb5afb59b1202632d219a?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">marthacwhite</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Get Well Sooner—And Cheaper: Two Medical Insiders Pull Back The Curtain on the Doctor-Patient Relationship</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/28/get-well-sooner-and-cheaper-two-medical-insiders-pull-back-the-curtain-on-the-doctor-patient-relationship/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/28/get-well-sooner-and-cheaper-two-medical-insiders-pull-back-the-curtain-on-the-doctor-patient-relationship/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Belsky</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=66899</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Healthcare spending dominates U.S. political and economic debate these days, for good reason. The rising cost of medical care isn&#8217;t simply a threat to our nation&#8217;s fiscal health. It is also, in the minds of a growing number of doctors, a sign that our society&#8217;s way of treating illness is out of whack, a dual threat to our health and pocketbooks. Two of those doctors—Joshua Kosowsky and Leana Wen—have written a compelling new book about a root cause of the problem: When Doctors Don&#8217;t Listen: How to Avoid Misdiagnoses and Unnecessary Tests. We spoke with both authors about what&#8217;s wrong with the doctor-patient relationship today and how it might be fixed.  How big of a problem are we talking about? Wen: &#8221;In their landmark report, the Institute of Medicine found that 100,000 deaths occur due to medical error every year. The majority of these are due to misdiagnoses. And this represents only the fatal errors; it’s likely that millions of other patients are misdiagnosed every year.&#8221; Kosowsky: &#8221;Not to mention all those who suffer the consequences of delayed diagnosis, often going through months and even years of frustration and uncertainty—and yes, unnecessary tests. It is estimated that 30% of all tests and treatments in the U.S. are unnecessary. This is a tremendous waste and drain on our healthcare resources, and poses significant harm to patients.&#8221; What&#8217;s the major reason for this? Why is so much of medicine off target, either in terms of missed diagnoses or wasteful testing? Kosowsky: &#8221;Modern medicine has veered off course. Instead of trying to figuring out what patients have—what’s the diagnosis?— health care providers have become stuck on “work-ups” and “rule outs.” It’s become easier to practice a brand of medicine that’s all about checking things off a list, rather than working towards an actual diagnosis.That&#8217;s why so many unnecessary tests are ordered.&#8221; Wen: &#8221;And patients suffer the consequences: addition risks, additional complications, additional costs. Even worse, at the end of the day, many patients are left confused and without a real diagnosis.&#8221; (MORE: Snowboarding May Have Reached Its Peak) What is the biggest<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=66899&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/28/get-well-sooner-and-cheaper-two-medical-insiders-pull-back-the-curtain-on-the-doctor-patient-relationship/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Health Care</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/health-care/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/124280856.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/124280856.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/124280856.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">124280856</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/a30699adf88a56f38defec3d45222e08?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">garybelsky</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can Electronic Cigarettes Challenge Big Tobacco?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/08/can-electronic-cigarettes-challenge-big-tobacco/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/08/can-electronic-cigarettes-challenge-big-tobacco/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Josh Sanburn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Decision Making]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=64696</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A curious television commercial aired across the U.S. last month that, until its final few seconds, was indistinguishable from an ad for cigarettes — even though such advertising has been banned from broadcast TV for four decades. In the television spot, the “cigarette” smoke, ash tip and flame look real. The carton looks authentic. The man smoking it looks satisfied. The smoke, however, is vapor. The ash tip, plastic. The flame, simulated. The &#8220;cigarette&#8221; is a so-called electronic cigarette — in this case, an NJOY King, the first smokeless, nicotine-delivering, cigarette-like object that (at least according to its manufacturer) looks and feels and &#8220;smokes&#8221; like the real thing. Television commercials for NJOY Kings began running nationally in early December, making it the first smoking ad to run since Jan. 1, 1971, when Virginia Slims ran one final commercial a minute before the midnight deadline during The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson. (President Nixon had signed legislation banning cigarette ads on TV and radio the year before.) (MORE: Why Santa Claus Was a No-Show at Many Malls Last Year) E-cigarettes, invented in 2003, currently account for less than 1% of the $80 billion U.S. cigarette market. But they are growing rapidly: UBS projects that sales, which have doubled every year since 2008, will reach $1 billion in 2013. Numbers like that have put Big Tobacco on notice. &#8220;Consumption of e-cigs may overtake traditional cigarettes in the next decade,&#8221; predicts Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog. &#8220;And they&#8217;ll only evolve and improve as time goes forward — at far less risk. The technology portion of it is sort of like Apple. This is just Version 1.&#8221; The Birth of the E-Cigarette If e-cigarettes do start to take significant market share away from traditional cigarette makers, they’ll likely be led by NJOY, which has captured about a third of the e-cigarette market. The company was founded in 2006 by patent lawyer Mark Weiss, who had discovered an electronic cigar while traveling through China the year before. The technology was crude, but Weiss saw a business opportunity. Four years later, his brother Craig, also<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=64696&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/08/can-electronic-cigarettes-challenge-big-tobacco/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economics</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/economics-economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/biz-njoy-cigarette-1219.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/biz-njoy-cigarette-1219.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/biz-njoy-cigarette-1219.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">image: NJOY electronic cigarettes</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d88247e41871fc555c4a2747167091d2?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jsanburn</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s Getting Cheaper – and What You&#8217;ll Pay More for – in 2013</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2013/01/04/whats-getting-cheaper-and-what-youll-pay-more-for-in-2013/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2013/01/04/whats-getting-cheaper-and-what-youll-pay-more-for-in-2013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:17:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Tuttle</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Budgeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food and Beverage Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Groupon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saving & Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Smart Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bacon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dairy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ebooks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electronics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas prices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gasoline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[milk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSRP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new cars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TVs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=65882</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s the time of year when lists are made forecasting the rise and fall of household expenses, big and small. Accordingly, it may also be time to tweak the family budget. The top ten list from CNN Money of things that&#8217;ll cost more this year is dominated by everyday expenses, including meat (specifically steak, hamburger, and bacon), which is projected to increase in price by 3% to 4%, and dairy (milk, cheese, eggs), which could be 4.5% more expensive in the near future. Things could be a lot worse. During occasional freakouts over the past year, consumers were warned that there would be an &#8220;unavoidable bacon shortage&#8221; in 2013, and that dairy prices could double if Congress failed to pass a new farm bill. By comparison, a price hike that&#8217;s only slightly higher than inflation seems like a deal. Other items in the roundup include satellite TV (reflecting rising programming costs), new cars (base prices are rising—and the average price paid per car has never been higher), and pro baseball tickets (no one should expect them to be cheap to begin with), as well as mail (stamps are going up by 1¢) and public transportation in big cities like Chicago and New York. Mind you, those latter two expenses are still relatively cheap in the grand scheme of things, even after a price hike. (MORE: Top Money Resolutions for 2013) Then there are a couple of price increases that are truly painful—taxes and health care—in that they&#8217;re expenses that generally can&#8217;t be avoided, and that most people think that that they&#8217;re already too burdensome to begin with. Most workers will see their paychecks shrink by 2% in 2013, and health care premiums are projected to rise 6.3% this year. Together, they&#8217;ll make the average worker roughly $1,500 poorer in 2013. In a dealnews post featuring 12 things that&#8217;ll be more expensive in 2013, there is plenty of overlap with the CNN Money list. Health care, cars, and various groceries are on both lists. The dealnews roundup also highlights college tuition<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=65882&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2013/01/04/whats-getting-cheaper-and-what-youll-pay-more-for-in-2013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Budgeting</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/saving-spending/budgeting-saving-spending/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/872252-001-e1357319620153.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/872252-001-e1357319620153.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/872252-001-e1357319620153.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">fortune teller looking at crystal ball</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f8de938518e7b986d552694ed99aa54d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bradtuttle</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Four Misconceptions About Taxes and the Deficit</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/12/26/four-misconceptions-about-taxes-and-the-deficit/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/12/26/four-misconceptions-about-taxes-and-the-deficit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:45:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=65040</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In all the negotiations to prevent the fiscal cliff from hurting the economy, potential compromises keep coming apart over the issue of raising income tax rates, especially on high earners. Income taxes stir up strong feelings among voters because of concerns about fairness — and politicians exploit those emotions, whichever party they belong to. As a result, the broader budget discussion keeps getting diverted to focus on tax rates, which actually play only a small role among the causes of current U.S. financial troubles. In fact, there are really two different budget problems that often get mixed together. One is the current deficit, which totaled more than $1.1 trillion last year, almost double the amount that the U.S. economy can comfortably carry. The other is the long-term accumulation of debt. Even after the U.S. economy fully recovers from the effects of the recession, the federal deficit is projected to remain too high. As a result, the national debt is on course to keep rising as a percentage of GDP until it reaches dangerous levels. (MORE: Entitlement Cuts Loom as Obstacle to Fiscal-Cliff Deal) While everyone agrees that growth of the national debt needs to be slowed over the long term, experts are divided over how much the current deficit should be cut. Some commentators even argue that the short-term deficit should be allowed to continue for another year or so to stimulate the sluggish economy. The best solution to both these problems would be a grand bargain that limits the growth of debt over the long term while trimming the immediate deficit just enough to show that policy is heading in the right direction. What keeps getting in the way are a bunch of misconceptions, chiefly about tax rates. Here are the four biggest: The Bush cuts in tax rates caused the deficit. Some economists argue that Bush Administration policies taken as a whole, including costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, caused much of the borrowing beyond what the U.S. economy can sustain. More often, though, the blame is focused specifically on the cuts in tax rates. Those rate<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=65040&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/12/26/four-misconceptions-about-taxes-and-the-deficit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/c2a17e9cd7d94b4eb34e7d43558.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/c2a17e9cd7d94b4eb34e7d43558.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/c2a17e9cd7d94b4eb34e7d43558.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Fiscal Cliff Tax Fixes</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fixing Inflation Adjustments Is the Smart Way to Shrink the Deficit</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/12/11/fixing-inflation-adjustments-is-the-smart-way-to-shrink-the-deficit/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/12/11/fixing-inflation-adjustments-is-the-smart-way-to-shrink-the-deficit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:35:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=63690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let&#8217;s face it: There’s no way to reduce America’s budget deficit that won’t hurt someone, and that pain can’t be limited only to the rich. A payroll tax, passed in 2010, is scheduled to expire at the end of this year, for example, and that will cost middle-class households anywhere from $600 to $1,200. In addition, more than 20 million taxpayers could become subject to the alternative minimum tax (AMT), adding several hundred dollars to their annual tax bills on average. On the spending side, budget cuts would not only reduce government services but could also eventually cost tens of thousands of Americans their jobs. But there are other ways to make progress on the deficit over the long term that would be a lot less painful and would also be politically viable. In my last column, I wrote about the estimated $30 billion a year that the Federal government could save by getting really tough on fraud. Even more could be done, though, by changing the inflation adjustments for government spending. Cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) are used throughout the U.S. economy – for union contracts and income tax brackets, as well as for government entitlements. It may seem only fair to adjust contracts and government programs for inflation – otherwise recipients would see their standard of living steadily erode over time. But there are a lot of ways to adjust for inflation. Moreover, the most commonly used gauge, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), may overstate the adjustment needed. Switching to a more conservative measure could save as much as $200 billion over the coming decade. (MORE: The Best Way to Cut Government Spending: Get Really Tough on Fraud) The most commonly proposed change is to replace the CPI with another index called the &#8220;chained CPI.&#8221; Basically, inflation is calculated based on putting together a basket of commonly bought goods and services and then tracking the price increases for them. In reality, though, people don’t consistently buy the same things. If one particular item – steak, for example – gets very expensive, people will typically buy<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=63690&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/12/11/fixing-inflation-adjustments-is-the-smart-way-to-shrink-the-deficit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Best Way to Cut Government Spending: Get Really Tough on Fraud</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/12/05/the-best-way-to-cut-government-spending-get-really-tough-on-fraud/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/12/05/the-best-way-to-cut-government-spending-get-really-tough-on-fraud/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic Indicators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=62987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As America slides toward the fiscal cliff, both sides are debating ways to reduce the deficit in 2013 and also over the longer term. President Obama&#8217;s proposed budget for 2013 called for total deficit reduction of $4 trillion over six years – or more than $660 billion a year – based on a ratio of $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. In fact, it wouldn&#8217;t be too hard to find additional revenues: The tax hikes currently scheduled to go into effect in 2013 consist of nine different categories accounting for as much as $539 billion. And only a fraction of that would be needed to meet revenue targets for any likely budget deal. What’s less clear is where spending cuts can be made, since most programs that could provide big savings remain off the table. Fortunately, there is a way to begin reining in spending that would be painless: Get really tough on fraud. The challenge on the spending side becomes clear if you consider the consternation caused by the so-called sequester, the cuts slated to go into effect automatically in 2013 if there is no budget deal. This program would slash $55 billion from defense, $38 billion from discretionary Federal spending and the rest from cuts to entitlements, for total savings of $109 billion a year. But the spending reductions needed over the coming decade to bring the U.S. budget into a sound condition would have to be several times as large as the sequester. To have any hope of reaching those goals, policymakers cannot afford to overlook savings that can be made relatively painlessly. (MORE: How to Avoid the Fiscal Cliff) As a percentage of total spending on entitlement programs, fraud has been reduced somewhat over the past decade. But the size of social programs has been growing so rapidly that the amount of money lost to fraud remains enormous in total dollar terms. Moreover, the recent stimulus program has created new opportunities for fraud, according to the FBI. Among the largest sources of improper payments: Medicare &#38; Medicaid<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=62987&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/12/05/the-best-way-to-cut-government-spending-get-really-tough-on-fraud/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/fiscal_cliff.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/fiscal_cliff.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/fiscal_cliff.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">United States Capital</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why the Fiscal Cliff is the Wrong Thing to Worry About</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/11/27/why-the-fiscal-cliff-is-the-wrong-thing-to-worry-about/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/11/27/why-the-fiscal-cliff-is-the-wrong-thing-to-worry-about/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Financial Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portfolio Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Finance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=62104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When asked what it was like living through the German bombing of Crete during World War II, British novelist Evelyn Waugh replied that it began impressively enough but went on far too long. The same might be said for the current debate over the Fiscal Cliff. This issue loomed large during the Presidential campaign, but now promises to become an endless and tedious dispute. In the end there will probably be an unsatisfying compromise that avoids disaster but solves nothing important, while little attention is paid to America&#8217;s fundamental economic problems. The essence of the debate is that the Federal government has been running an ultimately unsustainable deficit of more than $1 trillion a year. A variety of changes in taxes and government spending are scheduled to go into effect in 2013 that would reduce this deficit by as much as $645 billion. That would bring the deficit down to a tolerable level, but poses two problems. First, more than two-thirds of the financial burden of this reduction would fall on the middle class – something both political parties have promised they would avoid. Second, there is genuine disagreement as to whether such a sudden drop in the deficit would be a drag on a still-weak economy. (MORE: As Fiscal Cliff Approaches, Mayors Warn of the Toll on Cities) One school of thought is that there is plenty of money around, thanks to the Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing. In addition, U.S. corporations have accumulated a cash hoard of more than $1.7 trillion, according to the Fed, and may have trillions more stashed in overseas subsidiaries. The reason for today&#8217;s slow growth, therefore, is not a lack of money but rather the fact that everyone is hesitant to spend because of uncertainty about the deficit, taxes and government policy generally. From this perspective, any consensus solution that starts bringing down the deficit would unleash loads of consumer spending and business investment. The alternative viewpoint, advocated by economists such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, is that reducing the deficit makes no<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=62104&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/11/27/why-the-fiscal-cliff-is-the-wrong-thing-to-worry-about/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/biz_fiscalcliff_1130.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/biz_fiscalcliff_1130.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/biz_fiscalcliff_1130.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">image: The sun rises on a cloudy morning at the Capitol in Washington, Nov. 13, 2012.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Pessimist&#8217;s Guide to Surviving the Fiscal Cliff</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/11/13/the-pessimists-guide-to-surviving-the-fiscal-cliff/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/11/13/the-pessimists-guide-to-surviving-the-fiscal-cliff/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Currency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Homes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wealth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=60873</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Optimism has been growing that Democrats and Republicans will be able to reach a budget deal that brings the deficit down to a sustainable level while avoiding a recession. A lot of investors appear to be skeptical, though, judging by the fact that the Dow has declined 473 points since President Obama won re-election. I&#8217;m skeptical too. A compromise may be achieved that avoids the drastic spending cuts and sizable tax increases scheduled for next year. But it&#8217;s hard to see how the economy will be able to achieve better than sluggish growth, accompanied by the risk of rising inflation. The problem is the math. If a country runs a deficit (as a percentage of GDP) that is equal to its growth rate, the debt level will remain constant. This year U.S. GDP will be a little less than $16 trillion, and its historical growth rate is 3.25%. That works out to what we might call a &#8220;safe&#8221; deficit of $520 billion, or even $600 billion if you allow for a little inflation. Last year, however, the U.S. deficit was $1.1 trillion — or roughly $500 billion too much. That gap could be closed by ending all tax cuts, tax breaks and stimulus payments for everyone, according to the Tax Policy Center. But two-thirds of the burden would fall on the middle class — something both political parties want to avoid. All the proposed tax increases on the wealthy, however, even combined with the end of the payroll-tax cut, would raise only $295 billion. So unless there were spending cuts twice as big as the ones currently scheduled, the deficit would still be too large. (MORE: Will Obama Make Wall Street Pay for Its Support of Romney?) Some people have proposed forgetting about the deficit until the economy is growing robustly. But there is a limit to how much more debt the U.S. can safely take on. The National Bureau of Economic Research calculates that debt greater than 90% of GDP slows economic growth. And at the current rate, within four years the U.S. will<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=60873&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/11/13/the-pessimists-guide-to-surviving-the-fiscal-cliff/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Investing</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/wall-street-markets/investing-wall-street-markets/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/fiscal.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/fiscal.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/fiscal.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">House Speaker Boehner Holds News Conference On Impending Fiscal Cliff</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whoever He Is, the President Elect Will Quickly Face an Economic Crisis</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/11/05/whoever-he-is-the-president-elect-will-quickly-face-an-economic-crisis/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/11/05/whoever-he-is-the-president-elect-will-quickly-face-an-economic-crisis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Currency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Job Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=59923</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This election cycle has been so contentious, divisive, and relentless that most Americans will breathe a sigh of relief once it’s over. Vice President Joe Biden has said he plans to take a vacation three days after the election, but the President Elect will have no such chance to kick back. In fact, he will scarcely have time to catch his breath once the ballot counting is completed. For while the drama of this election has monopolized much of the media coverage in recent weeks, the U.S. is confronting a host of terribly difficult economic issues that will have to be dealt with early next year. Fortunately, the most daunting challenges facing the nation offer some breathing room. The current recovery has been the weakest since World War II, and the current unemployment rate is higher than it was the day that President Obama was sworn into office. Some experts say this is because the recession hit the financial and housing sectors unusually hard, doing structural damage that held back the rebound. Others argue that it is the result of a badly targeted stimulus program and misguided tax and regulatory policies. Either way, something will need to be done to accelerate the speed of the recovery. (PHOTOS: The Recession in Pictures: America Copes with a Stagnant Economy) Over the longer term, the U.S. also faces a debt crisis. Borrowing more than a trillion dollars a year is swelling the debt faster than the economy can grow. That means debt will continue to rise relative to GDP, putting the U.S. on track to economic instability. It will be some years, however, until the country reaches an acute crisis. At present, the ballooning debt – and the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policies that finance it – have not significantly pushed up either interest rates or inflation. The key to any permanent deficit solution will be reform of the major entitlements, including Social Security and health care. And that will require extraordinarily difficult compromises. (MORE: The Art of Badmouthing Good Jobs News) Those compromises are unlikely to be reached in the<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=59923&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/11/05/whoever-he-is-the-president-elect-will-quickly-face-an-economic-crisis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/155341926-1.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/155341926-1.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/155341926-1.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">In Profile: 100 Years In US Presidential Races</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Six Daunting Financial Problems Facing America</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/08/21/the-six-daunting-financial-problems-facing-america/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/08/21/the-six-daunting-financial-problems-facing-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GDP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medicare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pensions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=47009</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The choice of Paul Ryan as the presumptive Republican candidate for Vice President has ensured that budgetary arithmetic will be a central issue in the election campaign. But it’s important to remember, as the Mock Turtle says in Alice in Wonderland, that arithmetic consists of four basic operations – Ambition, Distraction, Uglification and Derision. Of these, Distraction is likely to be the tactic employed most frequently this election season. The economic problems that America faces are fairly clear, but all the possible solutions are unpalatable. So the candidates will probably try to avoid getting too specific or, alternatively, divert discussions into debates over technicalities. But even where technical questions are important, basic decisions about policy &#8212; and values &#8212; have to be made first. To see this in practical terms, it’s worth taking a quick look at six of the most daunting financial issues that need to be dealt with. The National Debt. Federal government debt now stands at 73% of annual GDP, not counting money the government owes to itself, such as the Social Security Trust Fund. If current spending and tax rates (including the Bush tax cuts) are extended, debt will reach 93% within a decade, and will go into the danger zone in 15 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In 25 years, it will reach nearly 200%, at which point the Federal debt will be insupportable, unless it is devalued significantly through inflation. (MORE: Junk Bonds: Wall Street&#8217;s Newest Bubble?) Taxes. Total federal taxes are around 18% of GDP today, roughly what they’ve been since the 1950s. State and local taxes, however, have increased substantially over that period. Total taxes from all sources are now a bit more than 34% of GDP, up from a low of 26% in the mid-1950s, but below highs of more than 36% reached several times in the past 15 years. So by historical standards, total taxes are not especially low. On the other hand, there is room to raise taxes a bit without going into unprecedented territory. To have a<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=47009&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/08/21/the-six-daunting-financial-problems-facing-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/98134216.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/98134216.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/98134216.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">100 Dollar Bill</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t Nap On This: Why The Business of Sleep Will Keep Booming</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/08/15/dont-nap-on-this-why-the-business-of-sleep-will-keep-booming/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/08/15/dont-nap-on-this-why-the-business-of-sleep-will-keep-booming/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:00:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary Belsky</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Companies & Industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ideas for Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bedding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business of sleep]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entrepreneurs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insomnia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mattresses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sleep]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sleep clinics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sleep coaches]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sleep disorders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sleep economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sleep industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sleeplessness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=46586</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One day, when smog-free cars run on sea water and every loophole in the tax code has been closed, the entirety of humanity will be in such a glorious state of physical fitness and spiritual bliss that falling asleep will be as simple as  laying one's head on a pillow. Until that day, however, the business of helping people get a good night's rest is likely to remain what it is: A fast-growing sector in an otherwise slow-moving economy.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=46586&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/08/15/dont-nap-on-this-why-the-business-of-sleep-will-keep-booming/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Ideas for Business</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/ideas-for-business/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/149282639.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/149282639.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/149282639.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">149282639</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/a30699adf88a56f38defec3d45222e08?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">garybelsky</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unemployment Rate Ticks Up to 8.3% — But There’s Good News, Too</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/08/03/unemployment-rate-ticks-up-to-8-3-but-theres-good-news/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/08/03/unemployment-rate-ticks-up-to-8-3-but-theres-good-news/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2012 15:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Josh Sanburn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unemployment rate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=45620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The unemployment rate rose to 8.3% in July, but it&#8217;s probably the most hopeful jobs report in months. On Friday the Labor Department reported that 163,000 jobs were created in July, a figure that surprised most economists and outran almost all projections. The unemployment rate rose to 8.3%, but the report included a number of encouraging signs. (MORE: 10 CEOs Trying to Do the Nearly Impossible) First, anytime monthly jobs figures are in the six digits these days, it feels like a reason to rejoice. After what appeared to be the beginning of a recovery earlier this year (much like in 2011), the last several months have seen gains below 100,000, not enough to significantly move the unemployment rate one way or another, or even keep up with population growth. May payroll numbers were revised upward from 77,000 to 87,000 in the July report, while June was revised downward from 80,000 to 64,000. Dismal numbers indeed. The July jobs gain itself was the strongest in five months and beat out most economists’ projections of around 100,000. While government is still shedding jobs, everybody else is hiring. The manufacturing sector added 25,000 jobs, the health-care industry added 12,000, and professional and business services gained 49,000, putting private sector payroll gains at a relatively healthy 172,000. Government positions fell 9,000. Friday&#8217;s numbers show a discrepancy between the unemployment rate and the jobs figures, and that&#8217;s because the rate measures the number of people looking for a job. Last month there were 260,000 fewer “discouraged workers,” meaning  more people attempted to re-enter the labor force by looking for work. “That’s a big swing,” says Peter Cappelli, professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “It’s a huge number, and that’s good news.” Another good sign: The number of long-term unemployed dropped by 185,000 between June and July when seasonally adjusted. But it’s still higher than it was just a few months ago and is now at 5,185,000 Americans who have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. The worrisome news is<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=45620&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/08/03/unemployment-rate-ticks-up-to-8-3-but-theres-good-news/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Jobs</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/jobs-economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/148129018.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/148129018.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/148129018.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Job Seekers Attend &#34;HIREvent&#34; Job Fair In San Francisco</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d88247e41871fc555c4a2747167091d2?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jsanburn</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Obamacare Should Be Redesigned, But Not Repealed</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/07/19/why-obamacare-should-be-redesigned-not-repealed/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/07/19/why-obamacare-should-be-redesigned-not-repealed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affordable care act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House of Representatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[universal health care]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=43255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week’s vote by the House of Representatives to repeal President Obama&#8217;s health care plan was the 33rd such attempt – and just as unlikely to have any real effect as the previous 32 votes. In fact, repealing the entire law and replacing it with something completely different will be quite difficult politically. Nonetheless, over the long term, financial pressures are likely to force substantial alterations in the law as it currently stands. If those changes are made intelligently, they could lower costs and increase consumer choice, while preserving universal coverage. Experts argue over every aspect of the Affordable Care Act, including its financial implications. But as even some of Obamacare&#8217;s greatest supporters admit, the goal was to craft a plan for universal health care coverage that could pass Congress and be signed into law. If there were flaws and awkward compromises, they could be fixed later. In my view, there are in fact two big flaws – Obamacare does not sufficiently control costs and its standards are too restrictive when it comes to determining what types of health care coverage are allowed. Both those flaws could be addressed by recognizing that the standards for catastrophic health coverage – protection against serious illnesses that are hideously expensive to treat – should be different from those for everyday medical expenses. Over the long term, I believe, financial realities and consumer preferences will encourage changes in just such a direction. (MORE: LIBOR Rigging: What the Regulators Saw (But Didn&#8217;t Shut Down)) On paper, Obamacare has always been billed as a deficit reducer. But if you look solely at the part of the law concerned with health insurance, it adds more than $100 billion annually to federal spending, and that amount grows over time, according to the Congressional Budget Office. To prevent this from increasing the deficit, the cost is supposed to be more than offset by additional taxes and also by large cuts in Medicare spending. These proposed changes to Medicare are already meeting strong resistance from doctors and other health care providers. Another part<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=43255&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/07/19/why-obamacare-should-be-redesigned-not-repealed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Health Care</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/health-care/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/biz_healthcare_0716_wp.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/biz_healthcare_0716_wp.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/biz_healthcare_0716_wp.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Boehner, House Leaders Hold Speak To Media At The Capitol</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should All Young Americans Be Fiscal Conservatives?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/06/27/should-young-americans-all-be-in-the-tea-party/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/06/27/should-young-americans-all-be-in-the-tea-party/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wealth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget cuts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax cuts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tea party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[young america]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=41441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today’s government deficits allow the older generation to live at the expense of the young and those not yet born. So said eminent British historian and Harvard professor Niall Ferguson in a recent lecture. It is indeed remarkable that the young accept the fact that they will eventually end up having to pay off a mountain of debt at the same time that their own standard of living is eroding. But what is even more surprising, as Ferguson went on to add, is how easy it is “to win the support of young voters for policies that would ultimately make matters even worse for them, like maintaining defined-benefit pensions for public employees. If young Americans knew what was good for them, they would all be in the Tea Party.&#8221; Instead, polls show that young Americans have become increasingly liberal at the very time that their financial prospects are deteriorating.  Today&#8217;s voters under the age of 30 favor Democrats over Republicans by more than 14 percentage points, while voters under 30 were evenly divided between the two parties in the 1980s (and have remained more conservative as they have aged). Ferguson is known for being provocative, and there was a bit of mischief in his assertion. The Tea Party isn&#8217;t the most neutral choice as a symbol of fiscal responsibility. In addition, some critics argue that the Tea Party is willing to preserve programs that serve the old, such as Social Security, and slash spending elsewhere, particularly on programs that benefit the young. So let&#8217;s rephrase the question to make it less loaded: If young Americans knew what was good for them, would they all support aggressive deficit-cutting plans that slash government spending across the board? (MORE: Blackberry Bankers: RIM Edges Closer to a Sale) One way of analyzing such questions that has become increasingly popular among policy makers is what is known as intergenerational equity. The basic idea is straightforward: Public policy decisions should not enrich one generation at the expense of another. Ideally, in fact, each generation should leave the world a little better<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=41441&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/06/27/should-young-americans-all-be-in-the-tea-party/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/2100_biz_voters_0625.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/2100_biz_voters_0625.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/2100_biz_voters_0625.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Bobby Wallace</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Dangerous Is America&#8217;s Debt?</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/06/12/how-dangerous-is-americas-debt/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/06/12/how-dangerous-is-americas-debt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Austerity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street & Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congressional Budget Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discretionary spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entitlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiscal cliff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GDP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recession]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=40003</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the past three weeks, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released two reports that seem to justify contradictory fiscal policies. The first calculated that the U.S. economy could be thrown into recession because of existing legislation to reduce the deficit sharply next year (the so-called fiscal cliff). The second projected that the U.S. will face an eventual financial crisis if the deficit is not reduced sharply. So what are we supposed to do? Obviously, America&#8217;s debt is a problem — but is it a clear and present danger, or just something we need to deal with as circumstances permit? To understand how to make smart policy choices that address both these issues, it’s helpful to take the debt numbers apart. There are lots of ways to calculate debt. All the sources have different numbers. And all the figures are slightly out of date. So let&#8217;s proceed by setting some approximate benchmarks. If you compare the debt of national governments to their countries&#8217; annual gross domestic product (GDP), the European Union averages 83% and Canada around 85%. Call that normal. Individual European countries that are in the worst financial shape have debt levels that are a lot higher — see Italy&#8217;s 120%. Call that bad. How does the U.S. compare? Officially, our figure for debt to GDP is 102%, which makes it seem as if we&#8217;re well on the way to having Italy&#8217;s problems. But our number is inflated by the peculiar way the government accounts for Social Security and a few other programs. The Social Security Trust Fund is debt that the government owes to itself. It&#8217;s really just an accounting device indicating that money is promised for future Social Security payments. If you look at only debt held by the public, U.S. debt to GDP is just 71%, well below the danger zone. (MORE: Spain Bank-Rescue Glee Morphs into Market Rout) There are other ways of calculating debt that need to be considered too. One is to include state and local obligations, which boosts the total government debt figure by as much as<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=40003&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/06/12/how-dangerous-is-americas-debt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Economy &amp; Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/600_biz_holedollar_0611.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/600_biz_holedollar_0611.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/600_biz_holedollar_0611.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">600_biz_holedollar_0611</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Invuity: Taking Surgery Out of the Dark Ages</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/04/27/invuity-taking-surgery-out-of-the-dark-ages/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/04/27/invuity-taking-surgery-out-of-the-dark-ages/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sarah Max</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Small Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health-care reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=35617</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Advances in minimally-invasive surgery have made for smaller and smaller incisions, thereby reducing the risk of infection and greatly improving patient recovery times. Yet, operating in tiny spaces comes with its own challenges.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=35617&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/04/27/invuity-taking-surgery-out-of-the-dark-ages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Small Business</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/small-business/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/surgery.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/surgery.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/surgery.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">surgery</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/3db8cd804a921bfa6f8a0ab92abe8cb6?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">sarahmaxtime</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/breastretractorsgroup01c-hi1.jpg?w=360" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">BreastRetractorsGroup01C-hi[1]</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Facing up to the Ethical Dilemmas in the Healthcare Debate</title>
		<link>http://business.time.com/2012/04/19/facing-up-to-the-ethical-dilemmas-in-the-healthcare-debate/</link>
		<comments>http://business.time.com/2012/04/19/facing-up-to-the-ethical-dilemmas-in-the-healthcare-debate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:45:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Sivy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy & Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health-care reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://business.time.com/?p=34537</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Policy experts complain that America has been slow to address its long-term economic problems – and unrealistic when such issues are actually discussed. But there has been even greater evasion and denial when it comes to the ethical dilemmas that will accompany those economic problems, especially where healthcare is concerned. Politicians talk as though relatively painless solutions can be found. But in reality there is no magical escape from difficult choices – they can only be dealt with by facing up to them squarely.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=business.time.com&#038;blog=31173800&#038;post=34537&#038;subd=timebusinessblog&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://business.time.com/2012/04/19/facing-up-to-the-ethical-dilemmas-in-the-healthcare-debate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Healthcare</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://business.time.com/category/economy-policy/healthcare-economy-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/dollarsteth.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/dollarsteth.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timebusinessblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/dollarsteth.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">dollarsteth</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b8875a12f713f52ecc28fe72efed7fd4?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F2.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">michaelsivy</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
