US Politics Mega-thread - Page 277

When a school in Dallas, Texas, provides two dollars to students for each book they have read, it might get them to read more, but it makes them also to consider reading as a form of piecework instead of as a satisfaction in itself.

This is what I see when I look at social welfare programs and the market economy. There is a decision to make on whether to leave a good/service to the private sector for efficiency, or to the public sector under a social directive.

On June 04 2013 05:09 Ingsoc101 wrote:
This is where the role of proper parenting comes into play, something that modern society has a propensity to ignore in such equations. Which might have a little something to do with the continual breakdown of the family and proper parenting.

.

The Republican Party’s troubles with young voters are well known. But a new internal report virtually elevates the threat level to apocalyptic, declaring that the GOP needs a “fundamental re-thinking” of its approach in order to remain viable with the younger generation.

The 95-page report by the College National Republican Committee, based on in-depth research by the Winston Group on voters aged 18-29 nationwide, warns of “a dismal present situation” for the GOP when it comes to Millennial voters.

“Neither technology, nor policy, nor branding alone will fully endear the Republican Party to a generation that has now twice broken for a Democratic candidate by historic margins,” the report concludes. “Yet a message and narrative that focuses on economic growth and opportunity cannot exist without substance behind it. [T]here are still many items in the Republican economic agenda that young voters have not been sold on.”

On June 04 2013 05:31 Shiori wrote:

I'm curious as to what proper parenting is in this case. The main reason why proper parenting isn't common is because people tend to disagree on what it is. Moreover, what is the "continual breakdown on the family" referring to here?

On June 04 2013 05:53 Ingsoc101 wrote:

Well, among other things, the breakdown of the family refers to the massive rate of child illegitimacy, which all the data points to increasing rates of poverty, crime, etc. When it comes to proper parenting to get children to read, just doing basic things can go a long way. For example, teaching them to read at a young age, reading books to them throughout childhood, making them take time away from television or video games now and then, and so on. I don't know who would disagree with any of these recommendations. It's not complicated stuff, just be a parent instead of letting the school and the television do your job for you.

In one brief and repugnant interview, the GOP's chief congressional investigator into Internal Revenue Service abuses cherry-picked evidence, overstated his case, and violated the sacred American principle of presumed innocence.

If that was not enough, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., called White House press secretary Jay Carney a "paid liar," and couldn't explain why. "We're getting to proving it," he said.

Meet the best friend of a controversy-plagued Democratic White House: a demagogic Republican.

In a reminder of how the GOP overreached during the Clinton-era sex scandal, Issa doesn't seem capable of letting damning facts speak for themselves.

Interviewed by a smartly skeptical Candy Crowley on CNN's State of the Union, the California Republican found himself on the defensive from the start.

"Congressional investigators tell CNN the [congressional] report finds the IRS spent over $50 million on 225 employee conferences over a two-year period," Crowley said, adding that the Obama administration no longer allows spending on such training.

"So what's the hearing about?" she said. "Why are you having it?"

Issa shifted focus to the IRS's admission that its agents targeted conservative groups for review of their tax-exempt status. "Well, first of all, we're looking at the IRS for how big the problem is," he replied. "As you know as late as last week the administration is still trying to say there's a few rogue agents in Cincinnati when in fact the indication is they were directly being ordered from Washington."

Note what Issa is doing. He does it all the time--start an unsubstantiated allegation with an absolute declaration ("when in fact") and follow it with weasel words ("the indication is"). This smear-and-caveat technique allows him to ruin reputations without being called a liar.

Issa is a demagogue with plausible deniability.

On June 04 2013 09:45 Gorsameth wrote:


That reads like something utterly biased and petty. what exactly is the point?

On June 04 2013 09:45 Gorsameth wrote:


That reads like something utterly biased and petty. what exactly is the point?

Fiscal Headwinds: Is the Other Shoe About to Drop?

Federal fiscal policy during the recession was abnormally expansionary by historical standards. However, over the past 2½ years it has become unusually contractionary as a result of several deficit reduction measures passed by Congress. During the next three years, we estimate that federal budgetary policy could restrain economic growth by as much as 1 percentage point annually beyond the normal fiscal drag that occurs during recoveries. ...

Graphs:
+ Show Spoiler +

Surprisingly, despite all the attention federal spending cuts and sequestration have received, our calculations suggest they are not the main contributors to this projected drag. The excess fiscal drag on the horizon comes almost entirely from rising taxes. ...

On June 04 2013 10:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
From Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco:


Link

Emphasis mine and I'll parrot the 'surprisingly' sentiment as I am truly surprised.

States that refuse to expand Medicaid under President Barack Obama's health care reform law not only will deny health coverage to poor residents and lose access to a huge influx of federal dollars, they also will see increased spending on uninsured people's unpaid medical bills, according to a new report by the Rand Corp., a consulting firm.

The Rand Corp. analyzed 14 states with governors who oppose the Medicaid expansion. It found their actions will deprive 3.6 million people of health coverage under Obamacare, forgo $8.4 billion in federal funding, and cost them $1 billion for programs that partially compensate medical providers who care for the indigent, according to the report published in the journal "Health Affairs." Since nearly half of states may not undertake the Medicaid expansion next year, those figures could be even higher. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia plan to broaden Medicaid in 2014, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Obama and congressional Democrats intended the health care reform law to target financial assistance to those with the lowest incomes by offering Medicaid coverage to people who earn just over the federal poverty level and tax credits to other low- and middle-income people to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. When the Supreme Court upheld the law last year, it also ruled that states could opt out of the Medicaid expansion, which will dull the impact of Obamacare on the poorest uninsured.

"State policymakers should be aware that if they do not expand Medicaid, fewer people will have health insurance, and state and local governments will have to bear higher costs for uncompensated care," Carter Price and Christine Eibner of the Rand Corp. write. "We estimated states' costs for expansion to be less than the reduction in their costs for uncompensated care."

If all states were to expand Medicaid under the health care reform law, 16.2 million poor people would gain access to the program, bringing total enrollment to 62.9 million by 2016, according to the Rand Corp. analysis. Based on the 14 anti-expansion states included in the report, 4.4 million million fewer than that would join Medicaid. A portion of those people would obtain subsidized private health insurance under Obamacare, leaving a total of 3.6 million more uninsured than if all states were to expand Medicaid.

The Rand Corp. based its analysis on the assumption that Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin wouldn't expand Medicaid. The outcome of the Medicaid debate remains uncertain in several states, however. Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R) and state lawmakers struck a deal on the expansion last month, for example, and states like Florida appear all but certain to reject the expansion for next year.

On June 04 2013 12:48 aksfjh wrote:

If I would pin it on tax increases, it would be the end of the payroll tax cuts. We have good recent data from the stimulus that tells us the modifiers on spending and taxes, and we saw the biggest modifiers on the parts that pertained to lower and middle class people.

I think they're understating (or underestimating) the impact of the fiscal contraction though. Contracts are going to be drawn down over time and workers laid off the same way. More or less, what happened with government employees post recession. I'm not at the Fed though, so I doubt I can legitimately criticize their report.

Saying that an elected senator is needed quickly, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Tuesday called for a special election in October to fill the seat of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D), who died on Monday.

Christie announced that a special primary election will be held on Aug. 13 with an Oct. 16 general election to fill the seat, ending a debate over conflicting state laws and the possibility that the Senate election would be the same day as the November 2013 election. A nonpartisan analysis of the special election, puts the cost for the special primary and general election at almost $24 million.

“This is about guaranteeing the people of New Jersey a choice and a voice in Washington," Christie said.

On June 04 2013 13:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I would think that the payroll tax cut expiration would move revenue closer to the historic norm, but not push revenues above (or at most to the pre-recession level). But that's just my intuition talking.

As for spending they aren't counting interest payments, so that could be throwing off your expectations. I'm sure it explains some of my own surprise at least.

What does this literature tell policymakers and others trying to assess the impact of fiscal policy changes? It is an inconvenient reality that this literature provides an enormous range of multiplier estimates, ranging from –1 to 3. However, this range is not so much a reflection of disagreement over an underlying parameter as it is a reflection of one of the key lessons of this research—that there is no single multiplier that can be applied mechanically to all situations. The impact depends on the type of fiscal policy changes in question and the environment in which they are implemented. The effects of government investment are potentially greater than those of other types of government spending. And the effects from transfers to people without much wealth or ability to borrow are probably higher than from transfers to others. The impact depends on how policy changes affect expectations of future government spending and taxes. It also depends on how quickly the changes are implemented and whether they were anticipated before they were authorized. Moreover, the impact varies depending on whether monetary policy counteracts or complements fiscal policy. Finally, it depends on the state of the business cycle. Effects are more positive during recessions. An important lesson from the research is that it’s essential to clearly understand the context in which fiscal policy is operating, that is, the factors that may cause economic effects and the size of the multiplier to vary.

In a speech made to a gathering of Texas Republicans last month, tea party activist Ken Emanuelson claimed that the GOP does not want black people to vote unless they do so for Republican candidates, according to the Houston Chronicle.

“I’m going to be real honest with you, the Republican Party doesn’t want black people to vote if they’re going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats,” Emanuelson said at a May 20 "Battlefield Dallas" event in Dallas.

Emanuelson later backtracked in a note posted to his Facebook page, claiming he "misspoke."

"What I meant, and should have said, is that it is not, in my personal opinion, in the interests of the Republican Party to spend its own time and energy working to generally increase the number of Democratic voters at the polls, and at this point in time, nine of every ten African American voters cast their votes for the Democratic Party," he wrote on Tuesday.

Rep. Marc Veasey, a Democratic freshman whose district includes parts of Dallas County, responded to Emanuelson's comment in an email sent today to Battleground Texas supporters.

“Together, we can turn this cowardly attack into the catalyst that makes our movement stronger,” Veasey said, according to the Chronicle. “Battlefield Dallas and its tea party ilk have shown their true colors and now it’s time to hold them accountable.”

On June 06 2013 04:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Could have been worse.



Source

WASHINGTON -- After Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) gave a pitch on Wednesday for House Republicans to support the Senate "gang of eight" immigration reform efforts, conservatives said they appreciate his attempt to strengthen the bill, but ultimately don't expect to support the upper chamber's legislation.

"We have enough House members at 435, so we really don't need another one," Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quipped when asked about Rubio's impact on the House's own immigration legislation.

Rubio spoke about legislative plans during a meeting of the House Republican Study Committee, along with fellow gang of eight member Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), immigration reform opponent Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and other lawmakers.

The Florida senator told the House Republicans, as he has said before, that the Senate bill he helped draft needs more border security provisions in order to pass. He said Monday he would vote against the bill if it doesn't toughen its border measures, which are tied to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Rubio's argument has been that without such measures, the bill would fail anyway. But he told reporters after the House meeting that he has no plans to abandon the effort.

"I can tell you, as the bill is currently structured it isn't going to pass in the House," he said.

Flake said he agreed the bill should be strengthened. But when asked whether he, like Rubio, would vote against his bill without amendments, he turned and walked away.

"I don't want to address it," he said.