ThinkProgress Logo

NEWS FLASH

Nikki Haley Considers Turning Over South Carolina’s Exchange To Insurance Companies | Stephen Largen reports that South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) has decided not to “pursue any more grant money from the federal health care overhaul to fund a possible state-run health insurance exchange.” Instead, Tony Keck, her director of the Department of Health and Human Services, is floating the idea of having health insurers fund the new market places: “If a health insurance exchange is going to save everybody so much money, then somebody should be willing to pay for it,” Keck said. “Either the employer should be willing to pay for it because it lowers their cost of benefits, or an individual should be able to pay for it because it lowers their cost of insurance. Or an insurance company should be willing to pay for it because it gets their product out to more people.” What could go wrong?

Economy

Washington Post’s Fact-Checker Gets It Wrong On The GOP’s Role In The ’90s Budget Improvement

By Guest Blogger on Jul 1, 2011 at 4:40 pm

Our guest blogger is Michael Linden, director of Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Today the Washington Post’s fact-checker Glenn Kessler takes Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to task for saying, “I think we ought to go back to the people and the party that was the only party and the only people to balance the budget in 40 years. I hate to break it to my Republican friends, but that is the Democratic Party. We are the ones who did it.” Kessler gives her “three pinnocchios” and calls her statement an “alternate history.”

But Kessler is the one who is wrong.

One of Boxer’s main pieces of evidence was a piece I wrote in March using Congressional Budget Office reports to show that legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congresses in 1995, 1996, and 1997 had literally nothing to do with the surplus in 1998. And those are the facts.

So why, then, does he give Boxer three pinnocchios? What is his evidence that the GOP had anything to do with the surpluses? Well, he says, they caused a “substantial shift in the policy debate” when they got to Washington.

Even if that claim is true — and Kessler offers no evidence that it is — did that “shift in the debate” lead to any actual legislation that had any impact on the bottom line? No, it did not. I’m at a loss to explain how a perceived “shift in the debate” that led to no real change in budgeting policy can be credited with improving the budget situation.

Kessler is also upset that Boxer doesn’t give enough credit to the booming economy for its role in helping to balance the budget. And it is true that the enormous economic growth in the early 1990s was crucial to achieving a balanced budget.

But that doesn’t invalidate the point that GOP-led legislation played no role. Quite the opposite. Even with the benefit of the boom, the budget would still have been in deficit had it not been for the Democratic-passed legislation. Republican-passed legislation still played no role at all. Read more

Yglesias

Canada Day

By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 1, 2011 at 4:35 pm

As a known Canadaphile, I feel obliged to recognize that today is Canada Day and mark the occasion with one of Canada’s fine exported music videos:

Canada Day, for those who don’t know, celebrates the passage of the British North America Act of 1867, later retconned to be known as the 1867 Constitution Act. This act amalgamated the previously freestanding colonies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Canada into a single federation. It also re-split Upper Canada and Lower Canada into separate provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Ironically, though the confederation talks were held in Prince Edward Island, the island wound up not liking the terms and stayed aloof from Canada for several years after the foundation of the country.

One of the main ideas of confederation, as I understand it, was fear that the United States would try to conquer the area. We forget it today, but America tried to conquer Canada during the Revolution and again during the War of 1812, and various related schemes were tossed around throughout the first half of the 19th century. The Civil War demonstrated the ability of the United States to forge a powerful central government and deploy its industrial might for military purposes, making confederation seem more urgent. Obviously, such conquest never occurred a fact that I, for one, lament.

Security

The Iran War That Didn’t Happen

By Matt Duss on Jul 1, 2011 at 4:15 pm

Last year, in a widely debated article in the Atlantic Monthly, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that based on conversations with roughly 40 current and past Israeli decision makers, as well as many American and Arab officials about a strike on Iran, “a consensus emerged that there is a better than 50 percent chance that Israel will launch a strike by next July.”

Marking today’s deadline, Salon’s Justin Elliott spoke with Goldberg about what he may have gotten wrong:

Reached by phone at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Goldberg told me that he believes the article captured the “high level of anxiety” about Iran he encountered during a month reporting in Israel last summer.

“We wrestled with how to frame it and decided to frame it in a way that would drive concentrated attention to what we thought was a serious and urgent problem,” he said. “I would point out that by saying there’s a greater than 50 percent chance, we were still suggesting there’s a 40-plus percent chance it wouldn’t happen.”

It’s true that the article was written with a number of significant caveats. But it clearly asserted an Israeli consensus about the nature of the Iranian threat and the likely Israeli response that, in light of subsequent comments from former Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Efraim Halevi, seems extremely questionable at best.

As to the impact made by the article, Elliott reports that Goldberg pointed to “communications between American officials and their Israeli counterparts that Goldberg said were prompted by his Atlantic story”:

[Goldberg] said that Obama officials reached out to the Israelis to reassure them that “we’ve got this” — but Goldberg added he’s not sure how much stock to put in those communications.

I’m not sure how much stock to put in those communications either. Or, more to the point, I’m not sure how much stock to put in Goldberg’s characterization of them. It’s been pretty widely reported (and, of course, strenuously ignored by Obama’s critics) that President Obama made deepening cooperation with Israel on the issue of Iran a key priority of his administration from the moment he took office. An Israeli official told me last summer (before Goldberg’s article ran) that the depth of U.S.-Israeli coordination on the Iranian nuclear program is “even better than under President Bush.” If Goldberg’s article “prompted” any communication from the Obama administration to the Israelis, it was probably something along the lines of: “Why are you trying to play us like this?”

Elliott also passes along this defensive email from Atlantic editor James Bennett:

“I’m proud of the story, and I think it holds up very well. We didn’t anticipate Stuxnet specifically, but we did emphasize that changing circumstances could affect the timeline we described in the piece. The story succeeded in provoking a tremendous amount of debate about one of the biggest foreign policy questions of our time, and nine months after we published it, it remains the definitive article on the complex strategic thinking here and abroad about Iran’s nuclear program.”

Yeah, who cares if they actually got the story right? The point is they sparked debate. And, of course, generated a lot of web hits and sold some magazines with a title screaming “ISRAEL IS GETTING READY TO BOMB IRAN.”

LGBT

NY Catholic Bishop Bans Legislators Who Supported Marriage Equality From Catholic Parish And School Events

By Tanya Somanader on Jul 1, 2011 at 4:10 pm

Brooklyn, NY Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

New York’s successful marriage equality effort was marked by an outpouring of support from religious groups. About 727 clergy and congregations across faiths and denominations signed on to the push for marriage equality. However, in response to the civil rights victory, a New York Catholic bishop is offering a different reaction. CNS news reports that the Catholic bishop for the Brooklyn diocese Nicholas DiMarzio is asking all Catholic schools to not invite Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) or any pro-marriage equality lawmakers “to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration.”

In a statement issued on the night New York passed its law, DiMarzio said, “Republicans and Democrats alike succumbed to powerful political elites and have passed legislation that will undermine our families and as a consequence, our society” by opening “a new front in the culture wars that are tearing at the fabric of our nation.” Thus, DiMarzio seeks to bar legislators from Catholic recognition in “protest of the corrupt political process in New York State” that has “demonized people of faith”:

“In light of these disturbing developments and in protest for this decision, I have asked all Catholic schools to refuse any distinction or honors bestowed upon them this year by the governor or any member of the legislature who voted to support this legislation,” said Bp. DiMarzio in the statement. “Furthermore, I have asked all pastors and principals to not invite any state legislator to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration.”

“The above request is intended as a protest of the corrupt political process in New York State,” said the bishop. “More than half of all New Yorkers oppose this legislation. Yet, the governor and the state legislature have demonized people of faith, whether they be Muslims, Jews, or Christians, and identified them as bigots and prejudiced, and voted in favor of same-sex “marriage.”

“Republicans and Democrats equally share responsibility for this ruinous legislation and we as Catholics should hold all accountable for their actions,” said Bp. DiMarzio.

Incidentally, New York’s law clearly exempts religious clergy and institutions from having to perform or host same-sex marriages. Indeed, a religious institutions maintain the right to limit employment of a gay person, to give preference to people of the same religion, and to take any action that “promote[s] the religious principles for which it is established or maintained.” DiMarzio’s mandate is predicated purely on his anti-LGBT views rather than any real consequences he endures under the law.

In a joint statement, all eight bishops of New York slammed the marriage equality as a law that will “alter radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage” and that will undermine “both marriage and the family” by redefining “these cornerstones of civilization.” Presbyterian Rev. Glenn Leupold of Albany, NY however, noted that while some “believe — and believe is the operative word — that same gender marriage violates religious beliefs,” a religion “also does not have the right to force them not to marry at all.” Thus, New York, he said, is correct “in not letting religious organizations have veto power over a citizen right.”

Yglesias

This Old Housing Sector Subsidy

By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 1, 2011 at 4:05 pm

Via Greg Mankiw, a Pew survey on a much more consequential tax loophole than the corporate jet business:

Investment in owner-occupied housing faces an effective marginal tax rate of just 3.5 percent. In contrast, investment in the business sector faces an effective tax rate of 25.5 percent. This leads to a tax-induced bias for capital to flow into housing-related uses rather than other types of projects. As a result, businesses are less likely to purchase new equipment and less likely to incorporate new technologies than otherwise might be the case. Less business investment results in lower worker productivity and ultimately lower real wages and living standards. While the housing sector provides employment and has other positive effects on the overall economy and on society, the resources employed in the housing sector displace investment that would otherwise occur in the business sector were it not for the favored tax treatment of housing. The resulting distortion in the allocation of capital likely lowers overall output, because resources are allocated based on tax considerations rather than economic merit. In effect, the United States has chosen as a society to live in larger, debt-financed homes while accepting a lower standard of living in other regards.

It’s worth emphasizing how different something like this is from a well-designed subsidy to ensure the availability of affordable housing. Two kinds of things render housing unaffordable. One is that some people have very low incomes. The other is that there are regulatory restrictions on how densely you can build houses on scarce land. If you relax those restrictions, the quantity of housing goes up and more people can afford it. And if you direct subsidies at poor people as opposed to richer people, then their ability to afford housing goes up. But the home mortgage interest deduction “upside down” and gives you more subsidy the richer you are. The upshot, as Pew says, is much more about encouraging people to invest in bigger homes rather than smaller ones than it is about making housing affordable to the marginal family.

Alyssa

The Amazon Sales Tax Fight

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Jul 1, 2011 at 4:01 pm

I’m genuinely curious about this: to what extent is not charging sales tax the source of Amazon.com’s advantage? The company obviously thinks that being forced to charge sales tax is a dealbreaker, which is why it’s fighting laws that would require it to do that in New York and California, suing in the former and cutting ties with brick-and-mortar affiliates in the latter. But even if it was forced to pay sales taxes, it still seems like the volume of Amazon’s sales would let it be competitive with smaller retailers or retailers with physical locations.

And more than that, hasn’t Amazon shifted the market enough to ensure itself a long-term, if not permanent advantage? By putting pressure on smaller retailers, particularly on bookstores, Amazon has created a marketplace where it’s often the only place you can get certain items, and get them in a reasonably expeditious fashion. Now, a competitor would have to match that infrastructure and volume to match Amazon on base price and beat Amazon’s two-day shipping silver bullet, or find some other competitive advantage to really threaten their market share — and they’d have to operate under the same requirements to pay sales tax that Amazon’s probably going to be forced to accept. If I’m wrong, I’d love to know why, but Amazon’s tactics here feel like they’re fighting over a few meters of territory when they’ve already won the war.

NEWS FLASH

White House Announces New Counterterrorism Center Chief | The Obama Administration named a top lawyer at the National Security Agency as the new director of the National Counterterrorism Center. If confirmed by the Senate, Matthew Olsen will replace the current director, Michael Leiter, who has occupied the position since the Bush Administration. Before joining the NSA, Olsen was an associate deputy attorney general in the Justice Department.

-Jen Kalaidis

By Guest Blogger on Jul 1, 2011 at 3:55 pm

Climate Progress

Global Warming Hates The Fourth Of July

By Brad Johnson on Jul 1, 2011 at 3:28 pm

As fossil fuel pollution heats the planet, one of the casualties is the traditional celebration of the founding of the United States. The record droughts, floods, and storms fueled by global warming are causing widespread bans on fireworks and the cancellation of numerous municipal firework displays, even a celebration for our soldiers in Oklahoma:

There will be no fireworks this year exploding over Fort Sill in Lawton. The U.S. Army base’s Independence Day celebration and concert will go on as planned Saturday, but its fireworks have been canceled. A fire that started on a base firing range last week burned across 5,500 acres before it was contained. Thirteen homes were destroyed and 1,500 people had to be evacuated.

Firework shows from Texas to Massachusetts have been canceled because of the deadly climate conditions:

In Oklahoma, 36 counties suffering from extreme to exceptional drought have issued burn bans, which include a prohibition on fireworks except for public displays.

In Kansas, fireworks have been banned in Dodge City and surrounding rural areas due to the extreme drought.

In Louisiana, fireworks have been banned in Shreveport and neighboring Bossier because of extreme heat and drought.

In Texas, 170 counties have fireworks bans, including all of metropolitan Houston. Nearly all of Texas has burn bans as well. Because of the extreme drought, Fourth of July fireworks displays have been canceled in Texas towns large and small: San Antonio, Austin, Amarillo, Lubbock, Plainview, Magnolia, Tomball, DeSoto, Woodlands, Roman Forest, and Patton Village.

In Arizona, authorities have banned fireworks from Flagstaff in the north to Tucson, Douglas and Sierra Vista in the south.

In New Mexico, Gov. Susana Martinez (R-NM) has said that there is “absolutely no reason to buy, sell or use personal fireworks.” She has declared a “state of emergency in New Mexico regarding the use of fireworks.” Albertson’s, WalMart, and Smith’s stores have stopped selling fireworks in the state. Taos, with wildfires raging nearby, has canceled its fireworks display.

In Joplin, Missouri, where a devastating tornado hit on May 22, officials have banned fireworks because of the amount of combustible debris in the tornado’s path.

In Massachusetts, the historical recreation site Old Sturbridge Village has canceled its fireworks display because its fireworks launch site was flooded and alternative launch sites were damaged by tornadoes.

Austerity budgets are also killing Fourth of July celebrations, with fireworks displays canceled at Jones Beach in New York, in Chicago, Illinois, and in Shawnee, Oklahoma.

Related Posts

Economy

Bachmann Fails Economics 101: ‘A Dollar In 2011 Should Be The Same As A Dollar In 1911′

By Marie Diamond on Jul 1, 2011 at 3:25 pm

ThinkProgress filed this report from Rock Hill, South Carolina.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) officially kicked off her presidential campaign this week with a three-state tour through Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Her South Carolina swing culminated in a town hall event Wednesday evening at Winthrop University in Rock Hill. A thousand people came out to see the Congresswoman field softball questions like “Where do you stand on abortion?” from audience members and via Facebook, with 500 people spilling into an overflow room.

No one questions Bachmann’s conservative bona fides, but when she tried to appeal to goldbugs in the audience, she seemed more uncertain of her footing. In response to an audience question, Bachman proudly said she has signed on to Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) plan to audit the Federal Reserve. In an apparent attempt to prove she’s on board with people who believe gold is a more stable and reliable form of currency than the dollar, she then made a series of laughably uninformed economic claims:

BACHMANN: The shorthand way of describing to you what quantitative easing is is a license to print money without any value behind it…In the last two years of the Obama administration, if you pull a dollar out of your pocket, you have lost 14 percent of the value of that dollar. That means the federal government has stolen that money from you… They’ve been printing essentially valueless money and flooding it into the money supply. I don’t stand for that. A dollar in 2011 should be the same as a dollar in 1911. A dollar should be worth a dollar.

Watch it:

A dollar in 1911 had the same buying power as slightly more than $23 today. Bachmann doesn’t seem to understand that the dollar’s value naturally changes over time and accompanies economic growth — and that’s a good thing. Furthermore, the U.S. experienced inflation even when it was on the gold standard (which ended in 1971). Additionally, gold’s value isn’t fixed and also fluctuates over time — for instance, price of gold is currently at a record high.

So being on the gold standard and keeping a constant dollar value are inconsistent proposals. To achieve 0 percent inflation — which is itself an absurd idea, even according to Republican economists — a country would need an independent central bank.

As ThinkProgress has reported, gold bugs in the Tea Party have been playing an important role in the early states, and have made returning to the gold standard a litmus test for GOP candidates. Republican politicians have increasingly pandered to the far-right base by endorsing loony gold schemes, such as when presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty derided the U.S. dollar as a “fiat currency” — “a signal to a narrow constituency of voters who believe that America’s woes began when it abandoned the gold standard.”

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up