At the inaugural "Freedom Summit" in New Hampshire over the weekend, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said President Obama's economic policies mirror the "failed" policies of the 1970s: "Out-of-control spending, taxes, and regulation produced the exact same misery and stagnation." The remarks were well received, though none of Cruz's claim is true.
But as Bill Scher noted, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) attempts at the same event to combine recent history with economic analysis were arguably worse.
"When is the last time in our country we created millions of jobs? It was under Ronald Reagan ... Did he say, 'Oh let's just cut taxes for low-income people?' No, he said forthrightly, 'Let's cut everyone's taxes' ... The top rate was 70% ... he lowered it ... to 28% ... and 20 million jobs were created."
The Affordable Care Act has obviously become a major part of a national health care system, but as is now obvious, the implementation of the policy is hardly uniform nationwide. Some states have made a concerted effort to embrace reforms and implement the ACA as effectively as possible, while others made a deliberate effort to do nothing, regardless of consequences.
And as it turns out, those consequences matter quite a bit. Gallup reports today:
The uninsured rate among adults aged 18 and older in the states that have chosen to expand Medicaid and set up their own exchanges in the health insurance marketplace has declined significantly more this year than in the remaining states that have not done so. The uninsured rate, on average, declined 2.5 percentage points in the 21 states (plus the District of Columbia) that have implemented both of these measures, compared with a 0.8-point drop across the 29 states that have taken only one or neither of these actions.
This is important. It's not just that states that have made an effort now enjoy a lower uninsured rate, it's also that these states have done proportionately better at making progress. (Note, in the above chart, lower numbers are better.)
In other words, Americans living in states that haven't bothered to create an exchange marketplace and have rejected Medicaid expansion are worse off, and adding insult to injury, insurance conditions are getting better in those states slower than if they lived in areas where officials tried to make the system work.
Those officials who want to see "Obamacare" work effectively for the public are more likely to implement the law well, to their constituents' benefit. And at the same time, those officials who want the ACA to struggle can create their own self-fulfilling prophecy.
It took four months of effort, but the Senate finally approved a bipartisan compromise last week on extended unemployment benefits. The bill's prospects in the Republican-led House are, at least for now, non-existent -- as Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) put it, "I don't think there is a great sense of pressure on our members."
Putting aside whether lawmakers should only act when "pressured" to do the right thing, the debate took an interesting twist yesterday when two governors -- one from each party -- began trying to compel the House to vote on the pending jobless aid.
The governors of the two states with the highest unemployment rates are urging Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio to take up the Senate's unemployment extension bill.
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican, and Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, a Democrat, wrote to Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. D-Calif., asking that the House take up the Senate-passed bill.
In their letter, Sandoval and Chafee wrote, "As you know, long-term unemployment remains unacceptably high despite the fact that our economy has been recovering from the worst recession in generations. When our country has experienced similar rates of long-term unemployment in the past, Congress has consistently acted in a bipartisan fashion to extend emergency unemployment benefits."
That true, Congress has consistently acted in a bipartisan fashion to extend emergency unemployment benefits, especially when the jobless rate is as high as it is now. But that was before the current crop of House GOP lawmakers took power.
In the larger context, House Republicans obviously find it easy to condemn Democratic ideas. But on jobless aid, House Republicans now want the public to believe everyone is wrong: several Republican senators, Republican voters, at least one Republican governor, the Congressional Budget Office, the White House, independent economists, etc.
During the recent debate over the Paycheck Fairness Act, Republican opponents carefully stuck to some specific talking points, intended to sound palatable to the American mainstream. They're against wage discrimination, GOP officials said, and support equal pay for equal work, but don't want to bother "job creators" with pesky measures like these.
In other words, for Republicans, it's not that the pay gap is a good thing, but rather, legislative remedies to address the pay gap are more trouble than they're worth.
As Kyle Mantyla at Right Wing Watch noted yesterday, however, Phyllis Schlafly, a long-time Republican activist and leader in the religious right movement, is bringing an entirely different perspective to the debate.
Given [her anti-feminist] outlook, it is not surprising that Schlafly opposes things like the Paycheck Fairness Act and efforts to close the gender pay gap, arguing in an op-ed published in The Christian Post that closing the pay gap will actually harm women.
As Schlafly sees it, women want to marry a man who makes more money than they do. As such, if women and men make the same amount, then women will be less likely to get married because they will be "unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate."
The solution, obviously, is to increase the pay gap so that men will earn more than women so that women, in turn, will have a better opportunity to find husbands.
There was indication that Schlafly was kidding. On the contrary, she specifically wrote that if the pay gap between men and women were eliminated, "simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate."
And who wants to argue with simple arithmetic?
In Schlafly's vision, women will benefit economically after men get better jobs: "The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap."
To be sure, Schlafly isn't quite as powerful a political player as she used to be, but it's worth noting that as recently as 2012 -- less than two years ago -- she was a member of the platform committee at the Republican National Convention.
As became clear late last week and over the weekend, Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has a core group of supporters, many of whom happen to have weapons they're willing to bring to a protest. Bundy, who's been ignoring federal laws and court rulings for many years, also has his champions among conservative media personalities.
But David Nather noted that there seems to be a ceiling on Bundy support among conservatives who ordinarily enjoy railing against "big government," but who fail to see a "powerful rallying cry" in this story.
"It's like, really, Glenn Beck? This is the issue you want to get behind?" said one Nevada conservative activist who has followed the story for years. "People who aren't in tune with the story just jumped all over it. And then you go back and read the facts of the story, and then you go, 'Uh oh.'"
Uh oh, indeed. The new right-wing cause celebre is a man who doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the United States government, and whose supporters appeared prepared for a confrontation -- a potentially violent confrontation -- with American law enforcement.
The Politico report noted that Republicans and Tea Partiers are eager to talk about the Affordable Care Act and the IRS, but took a pass on Bundy: "Officials at the top Republican campaign organizations, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, didn't respond to requests for comment. Top lawmakers were silent. And a spokesman for the Tea Party Patriots said there was no one available to talk about the rancher issue on Tuesday."
I suppose that's preferable to the alternative -- GOP leaders cheering Bundy on -- but the silence isn't altogether comforting, either.
Several states from coast to coast have given up waiting for Congress to act on the minimum wage and are instead acting on their own. Connecticut, Maryland, and Minnesota each recently approved wage hikes, while Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Vermont are poised to do the same.
Oklahoma, meanwhile, is also implementing a new statewide law on the minimum wage. But in this case, the Republican-led state is a very different approach. As Ned Resnikoff reported:
Oklahoma cities are now banned from raising their own minimum wages above the state level, thanks to a law signed by Republican Governor Mary Fallin on Tuesday. The law will also prevent cities in Oklahoma from crafting their own mandatory paid sick day laws.
Oklahoma's minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour, the same as the federal minimum wage. The new law would stymie labor's attempts to raise the minimum wage in Oklahoma City, where activists have been organizing around a proposed ballot initiative to raise the city-level minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.
In contemporary conservatism, "local control" is an important principle. The right tends to believe the government that's closest to the people -- literally, geographically -- is best able to respond to the public's needs.
Except, of course, when local government considers progressive measures Republicans don't like, at which point it's time to intervene and snuff local control out.
Bloomberg plans a $50 million challenge to the NRA. (NY Times) The backpacks dropped at the Boston Marathon finish line contained a hoax bomb and equipment belonging to the news media . (NBC News) Ukraine suffers setback in bid to confront pro-Russian militias. (NY Times) AZ Gov. Brewer signs bill on surprise abortion-clinic inspections. (Arizona Republic) Duke Energy presents plan for coal-ash spill cleanup. (Greensboro News & Record) read more
Though at first this seemed like an odd joke, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apparently sent a 310-word harangue to the Internal Revenue Service today, complaining about the difficulty he has completing his tax returns. On Twitter, Rumsfeld described it as his "annual letter" to the IRS.
If I've transcribed it correctly, the entirety of the letter reads as follows:
I have sent in our federal income tax and our gift tax returns for 2013. As in prior years, it is important for you to know that I have absolutely no idea whether our tax returns and our tax payments are accurate. I say that despite the fact that I a college graduate and I try hard to make sure our tax returns are accurate.
The tax code is so complex and the forms are so complicated, that I know I cannot have any confidence that I know what is being requested and therefore I cannot and do not know, as I suspect a great many Americans cannot know, whether or not their tax returns are accurate. As in past years, I have spent more money that I wanted to spend to hire an accounting firm to prepare our tax returns and I believe they are well qualified.
This note is to alert you folks that I know that I do not know whether or not my tax returns are accurate, which is a sad commentary on governance in our nation's capital.
If you have any questions, let me know and I will ask our accounts to be in touch with you to try to provide any additional information you may think you need.
I do hope that at some point in my lifetime, and I am now in my 80s, so there are not many years left, they U.S. government will simply the U.S. tax code so that those citizens who sincerely want to pay what they should, are able to do it right, and know that they have done it right.
I should add that my wife of 59 years, also a college graduate, has signed our joint return, but she also knows that she does not have any idea whether or not our tax payments are accurate.
For the better part of a generation, there was broad agreement within the American mainstream about the legitimacy and utility of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It wasn't until quite recently that some prominent Republican lawmakers began approaching the landmark law in a very different way.
Perhaps the most striking example came in 2010, when then Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-Ky.) initially said he disagreed with parts of the Civil Right Act. In one especially memorable exchange, Rachel asked Paul on the air, "Do you think that a private business has the right to say, 'We don't serve black people'?" Paul replied, "Yes."
Four years later, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) wasn't willing to go quite this far, but Scott Keyes noted that the congressman isn't convinced the Civil Right Act is legally permissible.
Last week, former presidents and dignitaries celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, which bans many forms of employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters, among other things. This week, a Republican congressman declared that he's not sure if the Civil Rights Act is even constitutional.
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), a freshman congressman aligned with the Tea Party, held a town hall Monday evening in Gainesville where he fielded a wide range of questions from constituents. One such voter was Melvin Flournoy, a 57-year-old African American from Gainesville, who asked Yoho whether he believes the Civil Rights Act is constitutional.
The correct answer is, "Of course it is." Regrettably that's not what Yoho said.
"Is it constitutional, the Civil Rights Act?" the Florida Republican replied. "I wish I could answer that 100 percent. I know a lot of things that were passed are not constitutional, but I know it's the law of the land."
The "law of the land" reference presumably suggests Yoho doesn't intend to repeal the Civil Rights Act, but the congressman is nevertheless unsure of the law's constitutional legitimacy.
If you haven't already receive an email today from your uncle who watches Fox News all day, it's a safe bet his next missive will be about this.
The Census Bureau, the authoritative source of health insurance data for more than three decades, is changing its annual survey so thoroughly that it will be difficult to measure the effects of President Obama's health care law in the next report, due this fall, census officials said.
The changes are intended to improve the accuracy of the survey, being conducted this month in interviews with tens of thousands of households around the country. But the new questions are so different that the findings will not be comparable, the officials said.
Kevin Drum foresees "a whole new set of conspiracy theories ... about to take flight," predicting this story is poised to become Fox News' "new pet rock."
And at first blush, it's pretty easy to imagine what the talking points will be. Clearly, Affordable Care Act critics will say, that rascally White House changed the wording of the Census surveys in order to keep truth about "Obamacare" failures from the public.
The truth isn't nearly as provocative: the new Census data will begin in 2013 (before ACA enrollment), not in 2014 (after ACA enrollment).
The political influence wealthy Americans enjoy over the policymaking process is well documented: the more money you have, the more likely it is politicians are going to take your concerns seriously.
Demos published a new report on this and related issue -- "Stacked Deck: How the Dominance of Politics by the Affluent & Business Undermines Economic Mobility in America" -- and included a striking chart, breaking down voting participation by income.
All forms of political participation matter, but voting is among the most concrete ways that citizens influence public policy -- and the wealthier are far more likely to vote. According to the Census Bureau, 81.6 percent of Americans making over $150,000 reported that they voted in the 2008 presidential election. In contrast, roughly half of citizens making under $30,000 reported voting.
The chart shows the breakdown in 2008 -- a presidential election in which turnout was fairly high -- but it's worth noting that the participation rates are not only down across the board in midterm cycles, it also further exaggerates the gap. The Demos report added, "The gap in voter turnout in 2010 was slightly larger, with affluent citizens voting at rates as high as 35 percentage points more than low-income citizens."
Ezra Klein added, "The Doom Loop of Oligarchy isn't just driven by super-rich Americans spending huge sums to influence politics. It's also driven by working-class Americans disengaging from the political process, which leaves politicians more desperate for the votes and the contributions of the affluent."
It's important to appreciate the consequences of this dynamic.