ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Maid’s Rooms Making a Comeback in the New Guilded Age, But This Time The Rooms Are Bigger

Vivian S Toy reports on how building apartments that include small rooms for live-in help is coming back in style:

Maid’s rooms built in the 1910s and 1920s tended to be barely six to seven feet wide. Apartments that came equipped with them have three or more family bedrooms and might originally have had more than one maid’s room. At 905 West End, the developer Samson Management took a Classic 8 — which had three bedrooms, a living room, a dining room, a kitchen and two maid’s rooms off of the kitchen — and shifted and expanded the bathroom that had been shared by the maid’s rooms, combining the remaining space to create one larger room.

“This way, for people who can have live-in help, they don’t need to fit them in a tiny box; they can have a proper bedroom,” said Louise Phillips Forbes, an executive vice president at Halstead Property who is heading up sales for the building. Listed as four-bedroom apartments, they range from $2.74 million to $2.925 million.

I know who I’ll be voting for as humanitarian of the year!

Yglesias

Issues Change Over Time

I’m a big fan of DW-NOMINATE data and I think it sheds a lot of light on a lot of questions, but I think Nate Silver’s effort to use it to compare the ideological position of different presidents across decades of time just points to the limits of the methodology:

The model says if you average out JFK and LBJ you get (roughly speaking) Barack Obama. Common sense says it’s just a wildly different world in 2011 than we had in 1961-68. Compared to Kennedy and Johnson, Obama has positions on gay rights, interracial marriage, and the role of women in society that would have been left-wing radicalism in the sixties. Nobody would be enough of a right-wing maniac these days to propose hiking military spending up to Kennedy/Johnson levels, nor would any American president contemplate unleashing the kind of brutal violence against civilians associated with that era.

Conversely, on the general subject of economic regulation Obama is way to the right of Kennedy and Johnson. In the sixties it was commonplace for federal regulators to set prices in a broad range of industries, marginal tax rates were unthinkably high, etc. Times change.

Politics

Three Ways To Save Medicare Paul Ryan Doesn’t Want You To Know About

Across the country, Main Street Americans are speaking out against a GOP budget plan that would effectively end Medicare.

In taking aim at Medicare, these conservative members of Congress are claiming that they are actually “saving Medicare” from financial ruin and that there is no possible choice other than to privatize the program and throw seniors to the insurance industry. They say this to justify a plan that the Congressional Budget Office says would have the elderly spending the majority of their income on health care.

Yet what Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) — the architect of the plan to end Medicare — and other right-wingers don’t want you to know is that there are actually numerous way to shore up the fiscal solvency of Medicare that wouldn’t involve such a dangerous privatization scheme.

ThinkProgress has assembled three different policy options that, if enacted, could help Medicare’s future financial issues and save the taxpayer billions of dollars:

1. Empower Medicare To Negotiate For Lower Drug Prices: One policy option that would be very simple to enact and would not require any sort of increased spending or expansion of government would be to simply allow Medicare to use its bulk purchasing power to negotiate with drugmakers for lower prices. The program is currently banned from doing so, thanks to the clout of the drug industry. Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) estimates that doing this could save as much as $156 billion over 10 years.

2. Allow Drug Reimportation From Canada: One of the major costs in the U.S. health care system that drives up the costs not only in the private sector but also among Medicare are the costs of prescription drugs. One very easy was to greatly relieve this cost is to eliminate protectionist barriers and allow the free importation of prescription drugs from our neighbors like Canada. A failed measure proposed by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and John McCain (R-AZ) to do exactly that in 2009 estimated that doing so would save consumers $80 billion over ten years.

3. Globalize Medicare: Another protectionist barrier and detriment to free trade in the U.S. health care system is that seniors currently aren’t allowed to use their Medicare insurance system outside of the United States. An alternative to this would be to drop these trade barriers and allow seniors on Medicare to seek care abroad, where services are much cheaper. Economist Dean Baker estimates that if fifty percent of Medicare beneficiaries opted for this globalized option, then taxpayers would save more than $40 billion a year by 2020. President Obama dismissed this option when asked about it at a recent town hall meeting.

The primary reason these three common sense initiatives have not been enacted in the United States is because of deep opposition from the drug industry, for-profit hospitals, and other medical-industrial complex interest groups. Yet they all present simple and effective ways to lower costs and help shore up the finances of the Medicare program. If Ryan and other so-called reform advocates were serious about ensuring the fiscal solvency of the Medicare program and lowering health care costs for Americans, they would not remove these options from the debate.

Yglesias

Rich is Rich

Everything about multi-millionaire congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT) pleading that he and his wife “are struggling like everyone else” because he’s “land rich and cash poor” is ridiculous.

Everything to the extent that I would go further than Steve Benen:

The notion of being “land rich and cash poor” — or in some areas, “house rich and cash poor” — is legit. A family may have wealth from real estate, but not a lot of money actually sitting in the bank. I get that.

But Rehberg’s case makes the argument hard to swallow. According to his own financial disclosure forms, the Republican congressman enjoys a net worth in upwards of $56 million. Out of 535 members of Congress, Rehberg is richer than more than 95% of his Capitol Hill colleagues.

I think accepting this kind of principle into our public discourse is a mistake. If you have $2 million in cash in the bank, that makes you rich because with $2 million you can buy $2 million worth of goods and services. If instead of $2 million in cash in the bank you have $2 million worth of Treasury bonds, that makes you rich because you can exchange it for $2 million in cash with which you can buy $2 million worth of goods and services. Or if you have $2 million worth of Apple stock, that makes you rich because you can exchange it for $2 million in cash with which you can buy $2 million worth of goods and services. And by the exact same token, if you own $2 million worth of land, that makes you rich because you can exchange it for $2 million in cash with which you can buy $2 million worth of goods and services.

Since people with progressive political views often live in parts of the country where land is very expensive, I think they sometimes get unduly sympathetic to the view that land wealth somehow doesn’t count. But I promise you that it does! Being “house rich and cash poor” is a way of being, well, rich since unlike an actual poor person you are the owner of a valuable asset that you can exchange for money. That’s what being rich is. Bill Gates doesn’t have giant rolls of Benjamins in his closet, he owns billions of dollars worth of assets. Look up some average net worth charts.

Politics

Rep. Rehberg, Whose Net Worth Is $31 Million, Says He’s ‘Cash Poor’ And ‘Struggling’

As ThinkProgress has been reporting, conservative members of Congress are facing a backlash across the country as Main Street Americans, outraged by a GOP budget that effectively ends Medicare, speak out.

At a town hall earlier this week in Montana, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) began comparing the plight of every day middle class Americans like those at his town hall with his own economic circumstance. He droned on about how he’s ‘struggling’ as a small businessman. A constituent asked him what his own net worth is and he said he’s “land rich and cash poor”:

REHBERG: I’m a small businessman. My wife is a small businessman. She hasn’t taken a salary in ten years as a result of business. We’re struggling like everyone else. With the ecnoomy.

CONSTITUENT: What’s your salary?

REHBERG: I’m land-rich and cash-poor. Like ranchers and farmers and small businessmen throughout Montana. [...]

Watch it, via MontanaDemocrats:

While Rehberg calls himself poor and complains that he’s struggling, the fact is that he is, as of 2009 records, the 14th richest member of the House of Representatives. Opensecrets.org estimates that his net worth in 2009 was $31 million. If he’s struggling on that, one has to wonder if he’s really a good arbiter of what’s fair for Main Street America.

Yglesias

Against Nostalgia, Against Fatalism

Alex Tabarrok demolishes nostalgia for the lost utopia of the 1950s. But what’s odd about this whole discussion is that it started with Ben Wallace-Wells profiling Paul Krugman who reflected positively on the more egalitarian Long Island of youth. But here’s Krugman making Tabarrok’s point:

This Edenic Merrick has long since evaporated, giving way to something more socially distended and bizarre. (Amy Fisher, for instance, attended Krugman’s high school.) Would he prefer Merrick in the sixties to his current life? “Knowing that I am in fact me, this is a much better society for me to live in. And not because of the money but because it’s more open, more tolerant,” Krugman says. The food, he says, musing, is “a lot better.” You can get really good coffee just about anywhere.

Nobody’s actually saying it would be better to return to the America of the 1950s. The question is whether we in some sense had to give up the much greater degree of household-level income equality that existed then in order to obtain the better, more tolerant America of today. You can draw various kinds of causal links between social progress and growing economic inequality, but it seems to me that none of this can even begin to explain the drastic escalation in the rewards going to a relatively tiny number of high-flying financiers.

Economy

REPORT: From 2005-2010, Big Oil Spent Vast Majority Of Its Net Profit Enriching Executives

This week, the Big Five oil companies announced their first quarter profits, which, with oil well over $100 per barrel, came to more than $30 billion. Exxon alone registered nearly $11 billion in profits, a 69 percent increase over their first quarter profit a year ago. And if history is any example, these profits — gained at the expense of American consumers, from prices that are helping to slow the American economy — are going to go straight towards enriching oil executives.

As a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice shows, Big Oil, between 2005 and 2010, spent the vast majority of its net profits boosting dividends and purchasing its own stock — actions that largely help line CEOs’ pockets:

Among the largest five oil companies, less than 10 percent of after-tax profits went to exploration for new oil fields during the 2005-2009 period. Meanwhile, the percentage of net profits used to pay dividends and buy back stock was 58 percent in 2005, 73 percent in 2006, 72 percent in 2007, 71 percent in 2008 and 89 percent in 2009. These figures are high in comparison to other industries.

For 2010, it makes sense to focus on four of the largest oil companies, leaving out BP because of its disastrous problems during the year. In 2010, these four companies spent 60 percent of their profits on dividends and stock repurchases, and just 18 percent on exploration. In other words, the companies spent 3.3 times as much on dividends and stock buybacks as they did on exploration in 2010.

In 2008, when oil companies were making sky-high profits, they invested very little of that in alternative energy. In fact, “a CAP analysis of their investments reveals that the big five oil companies invested just 4 percent of their total 2008 profits in renewable and alternative energy ventures.” Exxon made $45 billion in profits that year, and will come close to that record if high oil prices persist.

At the same time, the oil companies — along with their Republican allies in Congress — are vigorously opposing yet another attempt by President Obama and Congressional Democrats to cut the almost $4 billion in subsidies that are spent on oil companies each year. “Over the last week as earnings season has approached, the Democratic Party leadership again talked about removing what they call $4 billion in oil industry subsidies,” wrote ExxonMobil’s vice president for public and government affairs Ken Cohen on Exxon’s blog. “The simple truth is that these are legitimate tax provisions to keep U.S. industry internationally competitive — to keep jobs from being exported to other countries.” But as these companies have shown, huge profits just get plowed into more accumulation of wealth for oil CEOs.

Politics

Texas Tech Football Coach Tommy Tuberville Embraces Birtherism

Outside of a few regular occurrences, sports and politics generally don’t mix. Elected officials sometimes toss out the first pitch of a baseball game, make friendly wagers with other elected officials, and attend iconic sporting events, like the Army-Navy football game or the World Series. And, of course, there are the obligatory visits to the White House by various sporting champions.

But sports figures, particularly well-known sports figures, tend to stay out of the partisan political spotlight. After all, both Democrats and Republicans like sports, so delving into partisan political debates is generally a recipe for disaster. But this week, Texas Tech football coach Tommy Tuberville didn’t just plunge himself into a partisan political debate — he dove headlong into the biggest debunked conspiracy theory in American politics, coming out on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s show as a birther:

HANNITY: He (Obama) could just get the birth certificate and it’d all over and I’m just curious why he wouldn’t do that?

TUBERVILLE: We’ve got enough controversy in this country, I don’t know why he wouldn’t just step up and say here it is.

HANNITY: Move on.

TUBERVILLE: Obviously there’s got to be something on there that he doesn’t want anyone to see. I don’t understand it. I’m an American. I don’t understand why we just go through this. I think it just continues to divide the country.

Why Hannity brought on a college football coach to talk politics is still unclear. What is clear, however, is that the supposed “controversy” over President Obama’s birth certificate is no controversy at all. The next day, Obama released his long-form birth certificate, which he obtained from Hawaii through a special request in an effort to put an end to birther nonsense. But even before the official long-form was released, the birther conspiracy had been debunked by numerous sources, including the president himself.

Thursday, Texas Tech officials refused to comment about Tuberville’s appearance on the show, and the coach himself has remained silent.

Meanwhile, Tuberville had already drawn the ire of the university’s faculty and staff after getting a $500,000 a year raise while the school was facing budget cuts. Surely, those same faculty and staff members will be thrilled to know that the most visible representative of the school is actively pandering to a conspiracy theory based on racism.

Yglesias

The Public At Least Thinks It Wants Spending Cuts To Be A Very Large Part of Deficit Reduction

Gallup sheds a lot of light on why the Beltway debate on fiscal balance is so unbalanced. Public opinion is unbalanced too:

Of course this raises the question of whether people really mean this, which I doubt. The public, as you know, believes that all sorts of money is being spent on all sorts of horrid things, little realizing that defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and debt service actually account for the vast majority of it.

Climate Progress

Is Donald Trump serious — or is he punking the GOP?

The “candidacy” of huckster billionaire Donald Trump raises many questions — especially about the sorry state of the GOP field of candidates and media coverage of U.S. politics.

Democratic strategist James Carville thinks Trump is such a liability to the Republicans that he wonders:

Was the posting of the birth certificate an intentional move to bolster the political standing of Donald Trump? This is one Democrat that hopes it was, as it would demonstrate a political move of great sophistication and overall strategic brilliance.

It is hard to believe Trump is actually going to run, but Salon has warned that Trump may be talking himself into a corner and  “might be serious” in his candidacy.

But even getting beyond his birtherism, it is hard to take him seriously when he drops multiple f-bombs during a stump speech, including one aimed directly at the Chinese, and declares his energy strategy is old-fashioned imperialism, “We go in.  We take the oil.”

Please put your head-vises on for this video:

Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up