ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

The Jobs Speech That Matters This Week

For all the attention played to the president’s recent jobs speech, and even to his deficit plan today, by far the most important economic news of the week is going to come out of the September meeting of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee. It’s set to be a special two-day affair in order to give members the time necessary to familiarize themselves with the options available to create additional monetary stimulus.

Most people see that as a sign that Chairman Bernanke has basically decided that he favors additional stimulus and needs a long meeting in order to whip votes and get everyone comfortable with his ideas. And certainly over the past couple of months, I’ve heard more frequently from professional staff that I’m underrating the basic lack of agreement around methods of delivering an economic boost rather than the desirability of doing so. Of the ideas under consideration, the one you ought to be rooting for is Chicago Fed President Charles Evans’ call to explicitly state that the Fed will tolerate a bit of extra inflation until unemployment drops several percentage points. My view (which I should add is by no means widespread among economists) is that such a statement would, on its own, increase real output. But even if it doesn’t, it’s a necessary first step to getting a boost.

Alyssa

Girl v. Girl In This Fall’s Lady-Centric Comedies

I’ll have much more detailed write-ups of each of these shows as they air, but as I wrote in The Atlantic today, looking at the Bridesmaids-inspired female-centric comedies, the big trends for fall seem to be women competing against each other, particularly along Betty-and-Vernonica-like blonde and brunette lines and the Bernie Madoff’s influence on New York:

There’s something odd and unfortunate about the tendency of sitcoms to pitch women against each other—even when there aren’t the affections of a boy like Archie Andrews at stake. In CBS’s 2 Broke Girls, which premieres tonight at 9:30, brunette Max (a tart and wonderful Kat Dennings) is immediately suspicious of Caroline (Beth Behrs), a former socialite who lost her fortune when her father’s Ponzi scheme collapsed and takes a job at the same Brooklyn diner where Max works. A gentler version of that dynamic is at work in NBC’s family comedy Up All Night, where new mother Reagan (Christina Applegate) tries to defend her right to family time against the demands of her boss and friend, talk show host Ava (Maya Rudolph, the only woman of color in a leading role in any of these shows). And in Apartment 23, which will debut on ABC later this fall, June (Dreama Walker), who moves to New York only to have her job vanish in yet another Madoff-like collapse, ends up rooming with the cartoonishly manipulative Chloe (the always wonderful Krysten Ritter).

In each case, some of the tension between each pair dissipates by the end of the first episode. But it remains frustrating that the most common way to generate dynamic friction between women in pop culture is to start with a win-lose scenario, where only one woman can end up in control of her time, a choice New York apartment, or a deeply scuzzy diner in an up-and-coming neighborhood. If the stakes were higher, the competitions might seem justified, but there’s something depressingly recession-sized about these conflicts, and the faster these shows move on to interesting and fraught collaborations rather than battles over scraps, the better.

I’m really curious to see how these shows evolve beyond their early episodes — there’s a lot of potential in the set-ups for all of these shows to say something interesting about the desirability of marriage, about friendships between men and women, and about a reduced, recession-era New York. Whether they capitalize remains an open question.

NEWS FLASH

Study: Child Abuse Increased During Recession | New research is suggesting that the recession may be partly responsible for the increase in child abuse among infants. A study published today in Pediatrics finds that the unemployment rates in the 74 counties that took part in the survey rose as the number of abuse cases grew sharply, “rising from about 9 cases per 100,000 children in pre-recession years, to almost 15 per 100,000 kids during the recession — a 65 percent increase.” Combine the stress of raising a young child with wage cuts or lost jobs and you get “a sort of toxic brew in terms of thinking about possible physical violence,” Mark Rank, a social welfare professor at Washington University in St. Louis told the Associated Press.

Politics

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley Admits There’s No Evidence Supporting Her Claim About Drug Testing The Unemployed

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) admitted today that she was wrong in asserting that half the people who applied to work at a nuclear facility in the state had failed drug tests, yet said she will still push to drug test the unemployed.

Haley has been advancing a plan to force jobless South Carolinians to pass a drug test before they can receive unemployment insurance, claiming an epidemic of substance abuse. The problem was so unbelievable, Haley said last month, that at the Savannah River nuclear site, “[of] everybody they interviewed, half of them failed a drug test.”

So unbelievable, in fact, that a spokesman for the Department of Energy, which owns the site, told the Huffington Post’s Arthur Delaney “he had no idea what Haley was talking about.” The site doesn’t even test applicants, just people who have already been accepted, and the rate of those who fail drug tests is less than 1 percent.

At first, Haley’s office doubled down on the claim, blaming others for faulty numbers, but in an interview with the AP today, Haley said she’ll be more careful before blindly repeating things people tell her without checking them:

I’ve never felt like I had to back up what people tell me. You assume that you’re given good information,” Haley said. “And now I’m learning through you guys that I have to be careful before I say something.”

Haley said she’d probably repeated “a million times” the story that about the test failures before being questioned about the assertions after a Lexington Rotary Club on Sept. 8.

The Savannah River Site story has been central to Haley’s drug testing push. “It’s the reason you hear me focus so much on job training,” Haley told the AP.

“I’m not going to say it anymore,” Haley said, but nonetheless said that she’ll continue her push for drug testing, even though the basis for it is entirely incorrect. As ThinkProgress has noted, mandatory drug testing for unemployment benefits is likely unconstitutional. It’s also just bad policy. The purpose of these laws is to save money, but in Florida, one of the first states to implement drug testing for unemployment benefits, the law is actually costing rather than saving the state money. Ohio is also considering a similar law.

Yglesias

Don’t Expect Much Difference Between Romney And Perry

I’m very much in sympathy with the general point Dana Milbank makes about the Mitt Romney versus Rick Perry primary, namely that progressives ought to hope the person who they think will make a better president wins, rather than hoping for the person they think is less electable.

That said, I think it’s important not to overstate the differences between the two men. Milbank actually walks up to this conclusion when he writes “[t]here may not be a whole lot of difference in their stated policies in this campaign, but Romney has a well-known history of more liberal positions on health care, climate change, gay rights and abortion.” The right way to interpret this, I think, is that Rick Perry has been running previously in Texas while Mitt Romney has been running previously in Massachusetts. As they are now both running for the same job, their positions are converging. The whole picture tells us only a little about what either man “really” thinks, but it tells us a great deal about the dynamics of partisan politics in the contemporary United States. Whoever emerged from the GOP primary will have the sort of views that one needs to have to win a GOP primary, and if that person wins he’ll govern the way a Republican would govern.

Seth Masket recently sent me a link to a working paper he did with Kathleen Bawn, Martin Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller (PDF) which is relevant to this. The parties in the United States are, they write, “coalitions of narrow interests in pursuit of policy demands” who achieve their goals particularly through the nomination process. Within this model, disagreements between candidates for nomination are interesting primarily if there’s an underlying split inside the party coalition. For example, even though Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama didn’t spend a ton of time during the primary arguing about K-12 education policy, there is a substantial divide within the Democratic Party between the views of the teachers unions and the view of a very well-organized and well-funded bloc of self-described reformers. The fact that the AFT endorsed Clinton and Obama’s pursued a reform agenda in office possibly indicates that Clinton would have governed quite differently in this regard.

If you look at the behavior of congressional Republicans over the past three years what’s striking, at least if you ask me, is the lack of serious policy cleavages. To me, that suggests that even though Texas is different from Massachusetts and Perry and Romney have different temperaments, the party as a whole has a lot of consensus about issues and priorities. Whoever wins will reflect that consensus much more than he’ll reflect his past record.

Economy

Research Provides More Evidence That Benefits For Long-Term Unemployed Are Not Weakening Job Search Efforts

Our guest bloggers are Heather Boushey, Jordan Eizenga, and Matt Separa of the Center for American Progress Action Fund economic policy team.

A new paper by Jesse Rothstein, a professor of public policy and economics from the University of California Berkeley and former chief economist at the Department of Labor, throws cold water on the notion — touted by many conservatives — that extending unemployment insurance benefits provides a strong disincentive for the unemployed to look for work and thus, is a major reason for our persistently high unemployment rate.

Using data from the Department of Labor’s Current Population Survey, Rothstein demonstrates that extensions of unemployment benefits have actually had a very small effect on the unemployment rate during the Great Recession. He estimates that extended unemployment benefits have raised the unemployment rate by between 0.2 and 0.6 percentage points. And about half or more of that increase is attributable to individuals who remained in the labor force and searching for a job because unemployment benefits allowed them to continue to do so.

In fact, Rothstein finds that unemployment insurance benefits extensions increased the share of people who became reemployed by about 1.3 percent, as of January 2011, because it motivated people to not exit the labor force and stop looking for work. Rothstein writes:

Any negative effects of the recent unemployment insurance extensions on job search are clearly quite small, too small to outweigh the benefits of transfers to people who have been out of work for over a year in conditions where job-finding prospects are bleak.

This evidence directly contradicts the talking points of many conservative lawmakers such as Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) who has said unemployment insurance “is a disincentive for [the unemployed] to seek new work” because it pays them to do nothing. It also rebukes other research by Robert Barro (2010) and David Grubb (2011) that has claimed that unemployment insurance extensions have contributed approximately 2.7 percentage points to the unemployment rate.

Rothstein’s findings are especially important as Congress begins to consider extending emergency unemployment insurance benefits amidst conservative opposition to grant such an extension. As recently as last month, Majority Leader Eric Cantor stated that Washington should stop “worrying” about providing unemployment benefits, given the budget deficit.

As President Barack Obama made clear in his recent joint speech to Congress, “If the millions of unemployed Americans stopped getting this insurance, and stopped using that money for basic necessities, it would be a devastating blow to this economy.” This is because economists estimate that for every dollar spent on unemployment insurance benefits, the economy grows by $2.00, since recipients typically spend — not save — those dollars.

Unless Congress passes an extension of these benefits, millions of Americans currently still unable to find a job will be left without unemployment benefits beginning in January 2012. Failure to extend these benefits would be devastating to the 14 million American workers still searching for a job and the 6 million people have been out of work for six months or more.

NEWS FLASH

Military Begins Accepting Applications From Openly Gay Servicemembers | As the military awaits to officially lift the 1993 Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy tomorrow, it has already “begun accepting applications from openly gay recruits,” the Associated Press is reporting. “No one should be left with the impression that we are unprepared. We are prepared for repeal,” Pentagon press secretary George Little said. The ban will end at one minute after midnight.

NEWS FLASH

Justice Department Says Texas Redistricting Map Violates Voting Rights Act, Discriminates Against Minority Voters | The Department of Justice weighed in today on the controversial Texas redistricting map that Gov. Rick Perry signed in May and civil rights groups argue intentionally weakens the Latino vote to benefit Republicans. The DOJ signaled their concern that the map discriminates against minorities and therefore violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The DOJ would usually have to “pre-clear” such changes to make sure they don’t unfairly affect minority voters, but Texas chose to skip that process, putting the fate of the new congressional map in the hands of a three-judge panel. In their court filing, the DOJ “den[ies] that the proposed Congressional plan complies with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act” because it does not “maintain or increase the ability of minority voters to elect their candidate of choice in each district” compared to the benchmark. However, the DOJ also sides with the state of Texas on several charges and agrees that some parts of the new plan do not violate the VRA.

Security

Israeli Ambassador To U.S. Falsely Claims ‘The Palestinians Didn’t Come To The Table’ During Settlement Freeze

Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador To The U.S.

Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas in a New York Times op-ed back in May said part of the reason the Palestinians are seeking full U.N. membership is that they’ve lost faith in the negotiations toward a two-state solution. “Negotiations remain our first option, but due to their failure we are now compelled to turn to the international community to assist us,” he wrote. A main obstacle to negotiations is the continuation of Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. In an interview with Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren this weekend on CNN, host Candy Crowley wondered why the Israelis don’t “just stop the settlements and come to the table.” Oren responded:

OREN: Well, we’ve stopped the settlements. We’ve stopped the settlements for ten months and the Palestinians didn’t come to the table. We’re willing to extend that for another three months. And the Obama administration determined that they still weren’t going to come to the table, the Palestinians.

Watch it:

Oren is right. The Israelis did initiate a temporary 10-month settlement freeze which expired nearly one year ago. However, Oren is wrong to say “the Palestinians didn’t come to the table.” Months after the settlement freeze took effect, the Israelis and Palestinians agreed to start direct talks, which began in early September, 2010 in Washington and continued until the Palestinians ended the negotiations after the Israel’s settlement freeze expired weeks later.

In order to keep the direct negotiations alive, President Obama proposed a two-month freeze extension in return for U.S. concessions, including military aid and support for an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley after the Palestinians establish their state. The Palestinians wanted a renewed settlement moratorium to include building in East Jerusalem, which was excluded from the original moratorium. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state in return for the extended settlement freeze, an offer the Palestinians declined.

Why would the Palestinians decline? “Palestinian leaders worry about the ways in which this could prejudice some key final-status issues, notably refugees,” wrote American Task Force on Palestine senior research fellow Hussien Ibish. “Moreover,” Ibish adds, “Palestinians are concerned that recognizing Israel as a Jewish state might be seen as endorsing discrimination against the Palestinian minority in Israel, which is approximately 20 percent of the population.”

Israeli settlements in the West Bank have expanded 660 percent since the settlement freeze expired and since then, there has been “nearly 2 times more construction in the settlements than in Israel.”

Media

Citing Fox News’ Demand That CNN Include All Serious Candidates In Debates, Karger To Release News Corp Letter

ThinkProgress filed this report from Los Angeles, California.

Even Fox News says it is a "scandal" for major networks to exclude candidates from presidential debates

Longtime Republican consultant Fred Karger, an openly gay contender for the GOP presidential nomination, was denied an opportunity to appear in Fox News’ debate last month despite the fact he met Fox’s standard for qualification. And even though it does not look likely that Fox will include him in its next presidential debate, Karger won’t be pushed to the side without a fight.

As ThinkProgress reported, Fox News host Neil Cavuto went on a rant two weeks ago, claiming that one of the biggest scandals of the year has been the media exclusion of serious candidates from major debates. Cavuto’s screed, aimed at rival network CNN, seemed to contradict his employer’s conduct of denying candidates like former Gov. Buddy Roemer (R-LA) and Karger a spot in its own debate programs.

Last weekend at the California Republican Party convention, Karger told ThinkProgress that he was aware of Cavuto’s statements, and that he will be releasing a letter today to Fox parent company News Corp to demand inclusion in the Fox News/Google debate hosted later this week:

KARGER: Well I’m sending a letter out, funny you should ask, on Monday again to Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. I filed a complaint against Fox News, the executives, because they excluded me from their debate even though I qualified for it. So, I’m asking again, I have two new polls that are out showing me at 1 percent, which is their threshold they’ve been using in their other two debates. So I hope to get in and Neil Cavuto is great. I’m hoping other courageous cable broadcasters will speak out against this. There are four of us. I’m calling us the four musketeers: Thaddeus McCotter, sitting member of Congress, two former governors, Buddy Roemer of Louisiana, Gary Johnson of New Mexico, and myself. We’re all very close in the polls to Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and others who are included in the debate. I’m saying open it up, have all 12 of us in. You’ll have diverse opinions, which is what you want to have in a debate.

Watch it:

Click more for an extended transcript: Read more

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up