Why Medicaid Expansion Is Still Wrong for the States

Governor John Kasich now joins the list of governors that are looking to expand their Medicaid programs. In some instances, the logic of such a decision makes sense. Democratic governors have traditionally supported expanding the role of Medicaid. But the decision by Republican governors, such as Governor Jan Brewer (Ariz.), Governor Jack Dalrymple (N.D.), Governor Susana Martinez (N.M.), Governor Brian Sandoval (R., Nev.), and now Governor John Kasich (R., Ohio), is puzzling.

Like most government programs, Medicaid promises more than it delivers. While it consumes an ever increasing portion of state budgets — crowding out other state priorities, such as education and transportation — its track record for delivering quality health care to those in need falls short. Endorsing the expansion ignores these underlying problems and in some instances seems to make them worse.

Of these five Republican governors, four joined the lawsuit against the Obama administration regarding the coercive nature of the Medicaid expansion. It is troubling that now that the Medicaid expansion has been deemed voluntary not mandatory by the Supreme Court, these governors are perfectly happy to have the federal government coerce them into the expansion with the enticement of new federal dollars.

Second, many of these governors argue that the Medicaid expansion is actually good fiscal policy. These governors may be looking at a short-term bump in new federal dollars, but the longer view shows that over time this new revenue disappears and the cost of expansion continues to rise. A recent study in support of the expansion in Ohio supports this conclusion. There are also many underlying assumptions that raise further questions related to the true cost of the expansion.

One is the assumption that the federal funding will remain constant. However, here too the longer view indicates the opposite. As federal policymakers debate the course for fixing the country’s fiscal woes, it is inevitable that if these efforts are serious, entitlement programs such as Medicaid will need to be on the table. Although the administration is trying to distance itself from its previous recommendations on federal financing of Medicaid, it is impossible to guarantee that the federal dollars will remain untouched.

Some governors have made their willingness to expand the program contingent on the federal government’s keeping its funding promises. They that if the federal funding changes, the states will opt out of the expansion. Such an opt-out strategy seems difficult. It is the exception not the norm for a state to scale back its Medicaid program. As a matter of fact, while there may be periods of slowing enrollment, overall enrollment continues to climb. From a practical position, it also remains unclear the process by which a state would opt out and the role that the secretary of HHS would have in that process.

Some expansion supporters argue that choosing not to expand Medicaid would mean that a state opting out would just be leaving money on the table, and that this money will include money from the non-expanding state’s federal taxpayers. Rather than a race to the bottom to scoop up as much federal tax dollars as possible in support of a program with poor results, the better solution would be for the states to recommend that Congress eliminate the enhanced federal matching funds. That would remove the temptation of federal dollars to do bad policy.

By 2017, one in four Americans is expected to be on Medicaid. In states that are trying to jumpstart their economy, it seems governors should be working to reduce dependence on the welfare state, not add millions more to it. It should be focused on getting people back to work, not creating incentives that keep people out of work. And states should be focused on fixing the program for those who are on it today rather than dumping more people into an already broken government program.

There needs to be a better solution. Simply because a governor wants to expand Medicaid doesn’t mean the legislature has to agree. State officials should be advancing reforms at the state level that move Medicaid in the right direction, not the wrong one.

— Nina Owcharenko is Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies and the Preston A. Wells Jr. Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

View the original article here

Recent Warming Is Still Unprecedented In Speed, Scale And Cause: A Marcott Et Al. FAQ

The main, stunning conclusion we can draw from the paper is that the rate of warming since 1900 is 50 times greater than the rate of cooling in the previous 5000 years, which undermines the whole notion of adaptation.

But the study also means the famous “Hockey Stick” graph is correct (and indeed too optimistic — even by mid-century, the hockey stick actually looks more like a brick wall for humanity, as the figure shows).

Of course, the deniers can’t stomach any independent support for the hockey stick, even though countless studies have now backed it up. So the lemming-like disinformer blogs continue to press the most inane attack on Marcott et al., arguing that the warming of the past century the authors found in their proxy records is in error.

What makes this so anti-scientific is that the uptick just happens to match the uptick in the heavily documented and independently verified instrumental record. So the disinformers are spending most of their time attacking the one part of the paper that we know unequivocally matches reality — see, for instance, Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution. See also Tamino, who has some good posts on the paper. And see NOAA (2013): ‘Robust, Unambiguous’ Independent Evidence Confirms The Recent Global Warming Measured By Thermometers.

And speaking of inane, there is a manufactured dust-up on twitter that somehow posting a blog piece on Easter Sunday is like making an unpopular political announcement on a Friday. But in fact, unlike Friday afternoon, Sunday is a great day to post a piece if you want high readership and traffic, as anyone who blogs regularly should know. If someone didn’t want a blog article to be read, they simply wouldn’t post it!

Here is an excerpt of the RealClimate post by Sean Marcott and his coauthors about their paper:

Summary and FAQ’s related to the study by Marcott et al. (2013, Science)

Prepared by Shaun A. Marcott, Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, and Alan C. Mix

Primary results of study

Global Temperature Reconstruction: We combined published proxy temperature records from across the globe to develop regional and global temperature reconstructions spanning the past ~11,300 years with a resolution >300 yr; previous reconstructions of global and hemispheric temperatures primarily spanned the last one to two thousand years. To our knowledge, our work is the first attempt to quantify global temperature for the entire Holocene.

Structure of the Global and Regional Temperature Curves: We find that global temperature was relatively warm from approximately 10,000 to 5,000 years before present. Following this interval, global temperature decreased by approximately 0.7°C, culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene around 200 years before present during what is commonly referred to as the Little Ice Age. The largest cooling occurred in the Northern Hemisphere.

Holocene Temperature Distribution: Based on comparison of the instrumental record of global temperature change with the distribution of Holocene global average temperatures from our paleo-reconstruction, we find that the decade 2000-2009 has probably not exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene, but is warmer than ~75% of all temperatures during the Holocene. In contrast, the decade 1900-1909 was cooler than~95% of the Holocene. Therefore, we conclude that global temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene in the past century. Further, we compare the Holocene paleotemperature distribution with published temperature projections for 2100 CE, and find that these projections exceed the range of Holocene global average temperatures under all plausible emissions scenarios.

Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

Q: What is global temperature?

A: Global average surface temperature is perhaps the single most representative measure of a planet’s climate since it reflects how much heat is at the planet’s surface. Local temperature changes can differ markedly from the global average. One reason for this is that heat moves around with the winds and ocean currents, warming one region while cooling another, but these regional effects might not cause a significant change in the global average temperature. A second reason is that local feedbacks, such as changes in snow or vegetation cover that affect how a region reflects or absorbs sunlight, can cause large local temperature changes that are not mirrored in the global average. We therefore cannot rely on any single location as being representative of global temperature change. This is why our study includes data from around the world.

We can illustrate this concept with temperature anomaly data based on instrumental records for the past 130 years from the National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php#anomalies). Over this time interval, an increase in the global average temperature is documented by thermometer records, rising sea levels, retreating glaciers, and increasing ocean heat content, among other indicators. Yet if we plot temperature anomaly data since 1880 at the same locations as the 73 sites used in our paleotemperature study, we see that the data are scattered and the trend is unclear. When these same 73 historical temperature records are averaged together, we see a clear warming signal that is very similar to the global average documented from many more sites (Figure 1). Averaging reduces local noise and provides a clearer perspective on global climate.

Figure 1: Temperature anomaly data (thin colored lines) at the same locations as the 73 paleotemperature records used in Marcott et al. (2013), the average of these 73 temperature anomaly series (bold black line), and the global average temperature from the National Climatic Data Center blended land and ocean dataset (bold red line) (data from Smith et al., 2008).

New Scientist magazine has an “app” that allows one to point-and-plot instrumental temperatures for any spot on the map to see how local temperature changes compare to the global average over the past century (http://warmingworld.newscientistapps.com/).

Q: How does one go about reconstructing temperatures in the past?

A: Changes in Earth’s temperature for the last ~160 years are determined from instrumental data, such as thermometers on the ground or, for more recent times, satellites looking down from space. Beyond about 160 years ago, we must turn to other methods that indirectly record temperature (called “proxies”) for reconstructing past temperatures. For example, tree rings, calibrated to temperature over the instrumental era, provide one way of determining temperatures in the past, but few trees extend beyond the past few centuries or millennia. To develop a longer record, we used primarily marine and terrestrial fossils, biomolecules, or isotopes that were recovered from ocean and lake sediments and ice cores. All of these proxies have been independently calibrated to provide reliable estimates of temperature.

Q: Did you collect and measure the ocean and land temperature data from all 73 sites?

A: No. All of the datasets were previously generated and published in peer-reviewed scientific literature by other researchers over the past 15 years. Most of these datasets are freely available at several World Data Centers (see links below); those not archived as such were graciously made available to us by the original authors. We assembled all these published data into an easily used format, and in some cases updated the calibration of older data using modern state-of-the-art calibrations. We made all the data available for download free-of-charge from the Science web site (see link below). Our primary contribution was to compile these local temperature records into “stacks” that reflect larger-scale changes in regional and global temperatures. We used methods that carefully consider potential sources of uncertainty in the data, including uncertainty in proxy calibration and in dating of the samples (see step-by-step methods below).

NOAA National Climate Data Center:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

PANGAEA:http://www.pangaea.de/

Holocene Datasets:http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198/suppl/DC1

Q: Why use marine and terrestrial archives to reconstruct global temperature when we have the ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica?

A: While we do use these ice cores in our study, they are limited to the polar regions and so give only a local or regional picture of temperature changes. Just as it would not be reasonable to use the recent instrumental temperature history from Greenland (for example) as being representative of the planet as a whole, one would similarly not use just a few ice cores from polar locations to reconstruct past temperature change for the entire planet.

Q: Why only look at temperatures over the last 11,300 years?

A: Our work was the second half of a two-part study assessing global temperature variations since the peak of the last Ice Age about 22,000 years ago. The first part reconstructed global temperature over the last deglaciation (22,000 to 11,300 years ago) (Shakun et al., 2012, Nature 484, 49-55; see also http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~shakun/FAQs.html), while our study focused on the current interglacial warm period (last 11,300 years), which is roughly the time span of developed human civilizations.

Q: Is your paleotemperature reconstruction consistent with reconstructions based on the tree-ring data and other archives of the past 2,000 years?

A: Yes, in the parts where our reconstruction contains sufficient data to be robust, and acknowledging its inherent smoothing. For example, our global temperature reconstruction from ~1500 to 100 years ago is indistinguishable (within its statistical uncertainty) from the Mann et al. (2008) reconstruction, which included many tree-ring based data. Both reconstructions document a cooling trend from a relatively warm interval (~1500 to 1000 years ago) to a cold interval (~500 to 100 years ago, approximately equivalent to the Little Ice Age).

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193; http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2012GL054271-pip.pdf).

Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.

Q: How do you compare the Holocene temperatures to the modern instrumental data?

A: One of our primary conclusions is based on Figure 3 of the paper, which compares the magnitude of global warming seen in the instrumental temperature record of the past century to the full range of temperature variability over the entire Holocene based on our reconstruction. We conclude that the average temperature for 1900-1909 CE in the instrumental record was cooler than ~95% of the Holocene range of global temperatures, while the average temperature for 2000-2009 CE in the instrumental record was warmer than ~75% of the Holocene distribution. As described in the paper and its supplementary material, Figure 3 provides a reasonable assessment of the full range of Holocene global average temperatures, including an accounting for high-frequency changes that might have been damped out by the averaging procedure.

Q: What about temperature projections for the future?

A: Our study used projections of future temperature published in the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, which suggest that global temperature is likely to rise 1.1-6.4°C by the end of the century (relative to the late 20th century), depending on the magnitude of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the sensitivity of the climate to those emissions. Figure 3 in the paper compares these published projected temperatures from various emission scenarios to our assessment of the full distribution of Holocene temperature distributions. For example, a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (SRES A1B) projects global mean temperatures that will be well above the Holocene average by the year 2100 CE. Indeed, if any of the six emission scenarios considered by the IPCC that are shown on Figure 3 are followed, future global average temperatures, as projected by modeling studies, will likely be well outside anything the Earth has experienced in the last 11,300 years, as shown in Figure 3 of our study.

You can read a discussion of more “technical questions and answers” by the authors here.

View the original article here

Thanks To Factory Farming, Backyard Eggs Are Still A Better Choice Than Store-Bought Ones

Backyard chickens raised for eggs and meat have been linked to an outbreak of salmonella, according to a recent story published by NPR. But though the outbreak was the largest ever to stem from contact with live poultry, it isn’t reason for people to abandon their outdoor flocks out of fear of illness.

The story cited a news brief from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which reported that between March 1 and September 24 last year, 195 people in 27 different states were infected with strains of salmonella, and 79 percent of them had been in contact with live poultry in the week before they became ill. But the story doesn’t note that the number pales in comparison to salmonella outbreaks linked to factory-farmed eggs and poultry. In one CDC study, the agency estimates there were more than 182,000 cases of egg-caused salmonella in the U.S. — including 70 deaths — in 2000. In 2010, more than 1,900 people contracted salmonella in an outbreak linked to Iowa egg farms that produced more than 2.3 million dozen eggs a week. And just last month, 124 people were sickened with salmonella in an outbreak linked to Foster Farms chicken.

These high numbers of salmonella cases from eggs and poultry are linked to the effects of factory farming. Chickens raised for meat are crammed tightly into warehouses that hold as many as 20,000 chickens, while the chickens raised for eggs live in sheds that can hold 100,000 birds and are often packed in battery cages with five to 10 other birds. Factory farms often contain huge amounts of feces and fecal dust produced by the birds, along with rat droppings and flies, and certain strains of salmonella can pass to the chicken if their food comes in contact with the fecal matter. In order to try to stem off the flow of disease within their flocks, farmers regularly feed the poultry antibiotics, which can lead to antibiotic-resistant strains of salmonella: in 2011, 107 people were sickened and one killed from an antibiotic-resistant strain of salmonella in turkey.

Raising backyard chickens, without the help of antibiotics, provides no risk of developing antibiotic-resistant strains of disease, and is also a way of avoiding the health risks and cruelty associated with factory farms. The practice could decrease the risk of egg-bourne salmonella: one study found cage-free poultry facilities had about 40 percent less risk of harboring salmonella. Eggs from chickens allowed to eat grass and bugs can be healthier too, containing a third less cholesterol, twice as much omega-3 fatty acids and seven times more beta-carotene.

The NPR article states the outbreak from live poultry was traced back to a single hatchery in Ohio, and quotes the CDC in saying the best way to reduce risk of salmonella through live poultry contact is to wash your hands and clean equipment used to raise poultry. There are risks involved with raising animals for food — and backyard chickens are no exception — but in this case, the benefits of home-raised eggs outweigh any the risk of disease.

View the original article here

ObamaCare's California 'Home Run' Still A Strikeout For Young, Healthy

Under ObamaCare, modest-wage earners face a choice: Pay premiums they probably can't afford or pay a bit less for policies with deductibles so high it makes them queasy.

The good news is that the initial ObamaCare premiums for the California market, heralded by state officials last week as "a home run for consumers," do appear to be somewhat lower than outside actuaries had warned.

The bad news is that the design of ObamaCare's subsidies still threatens to keep the young and healthy uninsured, driving up premiums for everybody else.

Consider the options for a 20-something single individual who earns 250% of the poverty level, or about $29,000.

Under the cheapest silver-level plan, that individual would have to pay $181 per month (after a subsidy of $34) on after-tax monthly income of about $2,050.

Though the silver plan is meant to be affordable, it's hard to see how such an individual could spare such a sum after rent, food and gas, medical bills and other necessities. Yes, medical bills. That's because the standard silver plan in California comes with a $2,000 deductible.

The law's crafters were smart enough to realize that not everyone will find a silver plan affordable, so they created the bronze option. For a bit less, $137 a month (after subsidies), a 21-year-old can get bronze coverage. Yet while the price is more realistic, the deductible of $5,000 may be so high that young people wonder whether the price is worth the sacrifice.

More good news: Those under 30 will have yet one more option, buying catastrophic coverage. These policies come with an even higher deductible of $6,400, but they are less expensive.

But here's the final piece of bad news: Because such policies come with no federal subsidies, workers earning 250% of the poverty level would pay the exact same $137 a month out of pocket for the cheapest catastrophic coverage as they would for the cheapest bronze-level plan.

That, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem with ObamaCare's subsidy structure. There are no subsidies for young people to buy the coverage that they really need and can possibly afford.

As a result, many may opt out and be stuck paying a tax penalty.

Andrew Malcom is on vacation.

View the original article here

Slamming Portman, GOP Rep Says He Would Still Oppose Marriage Equality If His Son Came Out

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) attacked Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) for supporting marriage equality at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Friday.

Speaking in a sideroom, Huelskamp blasted Portman’s announcement this week that he has evolved to favor same-sex marriage two years after learning his own son was gay. “Here’s a senator who couldn’t deliver his own home state in the presidential election,” Huelskamp said dismissively. He continued, “somehow, we’re supposed to believe that if we abandon traditional marriage, that liberals are going to flock to us,” calling Portman’s position a “capitulation.”

ThinkProgress asked Huelskamp whether he would re-examine his own feelings on marriage equality if it turned out he had a gay son like Portman, but the Kansas Republican was unmoved by the prospect. “I support traditional marriage,” Huelskamp simply retorted.

KEYES: Do you have a sense on, if it were your son who came out and told you that he was gay, how you would react to that announcement?

HUELSKAMP: Well, I agree with Sen. Portman when he ran for election. And that’s the principle. The principle is, traditional marriage and family is the foundation of society. It’s been a conservative bedrock principle for many years. And one thing that we have to do as conservatives, I believe, is actually communicate the value of marriage and family for the children. [...] Bill Clinton and myself, Bill Clinton in 1997 had the same position I have today. Actually Barack Obama had the same position two years ago. Isn’t it amazing how you read the tea leaves, you read the polls, and at the end of the day something suddenly changes over night?

KEYES: So, to clarify, you would still oppose same-sex marriage even if your own son came out?

HUELSKAMP: I support traditional marriage.

Watch it:

View the original article here

Klobuchar: Grand bargain on deficit still within reach

There is still time for Republicans to find common ground with the White House and congressional Democrats for a grand bargain on the deficit, a top Senate Democrat said Sunday. 

When asked point-blank on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” whether she believed a grand bargain could be reached, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) replied: "I do." 

"The American people will not stand for this anymore," said of the fiscal stalemate that has blocked lawmakers from a deal. 

"There are [several] things we can do" to trim government spending, such as closing a number of corporate loopholes in the current tax code ,while ensuring critical social welfare programs remain viable, she added. 

However, House and Senate Republicans would have to acknowledge that tax increases must be part of that equation, she insisted. 

Klobuchar’s optimism was matched by Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who told “Fox News Sunday” that he sees a four to five month window in which to obtain a grand deficit bargain.  

“I think Republicans if they saw true entitlement reform would be glad to look at tax reform that generates additional revenues," said Corker. 

But "that doesn't mean increasing rates that means closing loopholes, that . . . means arranging our tax system so that we have economic growth,” he added. 

Their comments come after President Obama’s week-long effort to reach out to lawmakers from both parties. The president visited Capitol Hill to speak with Democrats and Republicans from both chambers on a wide range of issues, but with a focus on building a framework to reach a deficit deal.

Despite those efforts, House Majority Leader Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) remained unconvinced either side will be able to come together on a large-scale deficit deal. 

“I don't know whether we can come to a big agreement,” said Boehner in an Sunday interview on ABC’s “This Week.” 

“If the president doesn't believe that the goal oughta be to balance the budget over the next ten years-- I don't-- not sure we're gonna get very far,” he added. 

But the battle between congressional Republicans and the Obama administration does not mean House and Senate lawmakers cannot come up with their own bipartisan plan, according to Boehner. 

"Hopefully, we can go to conference on these budgets and hope springs eternal in my mind,” Boehner said.

View Comments

View the original article here

Why Medicaid Expansion Is Still Wrong for the States

Governor John Kasich now joins the list of governors that are looking to expand their Medicaid programs. In some instances, the logic of such a decision makes sense. Democratic governors have traditionally supported expanding the role of Medicaid. But the decision by Republican governors, such as Governor Jan Brewer (Ariz.), Governor Jack Dalrymple (N.D.), Governor Susana Martinez (N.M.), Governor Brian Sandoval (R., Nev.), and now Governor John Kasich (R., Ohio), is puzzling.

Like most government programs, Medicaid promises more than it delivers. While it consumes an ever increasing portion of state budgets — crowding out other state priorities, such as education and transportation — its track record for delivering quality health care to those in need falls short. Endorsing the expansion ignores these underlying problems and in some instances seems to make them worse.

Of these five Republican governors, four joined the lawsuit against the Obama administration regarding the coercive nature of the Medicaid expansion. It is troubling that now that the Medicaid expansion has been deemed voluntary not mandatory by the Supreme Court, these governors are perfectly happy to have the federal government coerce them into the expansion with the enticement of new federal dollars.

Second, many of these governors argue that the Medicaid expansion is actually good fiscal policy. These governors may be looking at a short-term bump in new federal dollars, but the longer view shows that over time this new revenue disappears and the cost of expansion continues to rise. A recent study in support of the expansion in Ohio supports this conclusion. There are also many underlying assumptions that raise further questions related to the true cost of the expansion.

One is the assumption that the federal funding will remain constant. However, here too the longer view indicates the opposite. As federal policymakers debate the course for fixing the country’s fiscal woes, it is inevitable that if these efforts are serious, entitlement programs such as Medicaid will need to be on the table. Although the administration is trying to distance itself from its previous recommendations on federal financing of Medicaid, it is impossible to guarantee that the federal dollars will remain untouched.

Some governors have made their willingness to expand the program contingent on the federal government’s keeping its funding promises. They that if the federal funding changes, the states will opt out of the expansion. Such an opt-out strategy seems difficult. It is the exception not the norm for a state to scale back its Medicaid program. As a matter of fact, while there may be periods of slowing enrollment, overall enrollment continues to climb. From a practical position, it also remains unclear the process by which a state would opt out and the role that the secretary of HHS would have in that process.

Some expansion supporters argue that choosing not to expand Medicaid would mean that a state opting out would just be leaving money on the table, and that this money will include money from the non-expanding state’s federal taxpayers. Rather than a race to the bottom to scoop up as much federal tax dollars as possible in support of a program with poor results, the better solution would be for the states to recommend that Congress eliminate the enhanced federal matching funds. That would remove the temptation of federal dollars to do bad policy.

By 2017, one in four Americans is expected to be on Medicaid. In states that are trying to jumpstart their economy, it seems governors should be working to reduce dependence on the welfare state, not add millions more to it. It should be focused on getting people back to work, not creating incentives that keep people out of work. And states should be focused on fixing the program for those who are on it today rather than dumping more people into an already broken government program.

There needs to be a better solution. Simply because a governor wants to expand Medicaid doesn’t mean the legislature has to agree. State officials should be advancing reforms at the state level that move Medicaid in the right direction, not the wrong one.

— Nina Owcharenko is Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies and the Preston A. Wells Jr. Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

View the original article here

Why We Still Need The Voting Rights Act: Perspectives From Supreme Court Spectators

The US Supreme Court heard a challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act today, attracting hoards of voting rights advocates, speakers, and a massive line of people vying for a spot in the courtroom. Today’s argument could lead to the elimination of Section 5, which protects minority voting rights in states with historically discriminatory election laws. Though Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 by overwhelming margins of of 98-0 in the Senate and 390-33 in the House, many Republicans are now calling for the Supreme Court to strike it down, claiming the protections are obsolete in the post-Jim Crow era. In the last election cycle, however, the Justice Department used Section 5 to block new voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina, early voting restrictions in Florida, and racially gerrymandered redistricting maps in Texas. The courts agreed that these laws would suppress minority voting power.

ThinkProgress spoke to five individuals waiting in line outside the Supreme Court. While the attorneys made their case inside the court, these supporters gave their own oral arguments for why the Voting Rights Act is still needed:

“There are unfortunately some people who don’t want all Americans to have the right to vote for the person of their choice. And I believe that every American, no matter what you look like or what your background is, if you want to vote you should be allowed to vote for the person of your choice. It doesn’t matter what party you’re in. I think everyone should have that right. And I have grandchildren, and I want them to be able to have that same right wherever they live.” — Priscilla

“I think we need to keep moving forward. I think it’s fair the way it is. I was part of voter registration this year and some of the people I got registered, when I went down to vote, there was no record of them. It was very upsetting. They gave them a form to fill out and said they would get credit for voting, so I don’t know exactly how that turned out. But it was an effort to not let everyone vote. The Voting Rights Act is still very necessary. You can see some of the setbacks, even today.” — Emma

“I was in the Capitol yesterday. We have a record amount of women senators here, but when you look down at the floor, it’s basically an old men’s club with white hair. White men with white hair. To me, that’s just the proof right there that maybe voting rights aren’t as democratic as they should be in this country. I think it’s important. The voting restrictions today maybe aren’t as overtly racial, but there’s still many restrictions to voting.”

“I think the Voting Rights Act, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are timeless. They have to be protected. I’ve read both sides of the argument, but if there’s any, any evidence at all that this would disenfranchise someone, then Section 5 needs to keep being renewed. That’s my personal feeling. As long as we have racism and bigotry in our country, then we need to protect those who can’t speak out for themselves.”

“Sometimes I really feel like there’s been a change [in racism at the ballot box], but at the same time, when you try to manipulate things and not let the public be aware of it… We’re voters, too. We need to have knowledge to what is going on on the boundary lines. Our city council didn’t even have a clue that particular thing had be done, but they did it, and next thing we know they manipulated it to the point of bringing someone else in. And we didn’t have a clue! It’s very important. Even though it started in Shelby County, this is a nationwide kind of event. It could happen anywhere.”

“I consider myself a “super voter” because I vote all the time, every election, even for dog catcher. It’s important to understand that voting is a fundamental, bottom-line, foundational right of any citizen, and it shouldn’t be impugned or even exempted from anyone. Voting and voting rights, as an African-American of course, has a tremendously significant role, being a part of this American citizenry. What we see from those who are trying to strike down voting rights is that there’s a realization of how powerful the vote is. So if you can restrict it, then obviously you can say it has some power to it. So being under attack by those who want to change it and have used things now with this new gerrymandering that’s going on, this locking votes in, is very, very important to understand that it is under attack. So those that believe in it have to defend it. That’s why I’m here today.”

View the original article here

AIA: Asia Still Under-Insured

 Highlight transcript below to create clipTranscript:  Print  |  Email Go  Click text to jump within videoTue 26 Feb 13 | 06:10 PM ET Mark Tucker, CEO & President of AIA Group, talks to CNBC after the insurance giant posted an 89% rise in full-year net profit, explaining how growth over the past three years has doubled.

View the original article here

Bobby Jindal: Republicans Can Continue Discriminating Against Gays And Still Win Elections

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) — a possible Republican candidate for president in 2016 — rejected former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman’s argument that conservatives must embrace marriage equality for gays and lesbians if they want to survive as a party and reiterated his support for “traditional marriage.”

“Look, I believe in the traditional definition of marriage,” Jindal said during an appearance on Meet The Press on Sunday, and went on to claim that Republicans don’t have to make the case on social issues to attract young voters and win future elections and instead should continue focusing on economic issues. “We lost [the 2012 election] because we didn’t present a vision showing how we believe the entire economy can grow, how people can join the middle class. We’re in aspirational party and we need policies that are consistant with that aspirational private sector growth.”

In an essay for The American Conservative entitled “Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause,” Huntsman — a Mormon whose previous support for civil unions set him apart from Republican presidential candidates in 2012 — argued that if the Republican Party wants to survive, it must enhance its appeal to gay Americans and the growing majority that supports marriage equality.

“[I]t’s difficult to get people even to consider your reform ideas if they think, with good reason, you don’t like or respect them,” Huntsman wrote. “Building a winning coalition to tackle the looming fiscal and trust deficits will be impossible if we continue to alienate broad segments of the population….Consistent with the Republican Party’s origins, we must demand equality under the law for all Americans.”

Polls show that most Americans support marriage equality, with many telling pollsters that their minds have evolved on the issue.

View the original article here

11 GOP Governors Still Need To Decide Whether Or Not To Deny Health Care To Low-Income Americans

Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) announced on Wednesday that he will turn down Obamacare’s optional expansion of the Medicaid program, which makes him the thirteenth Republican leader to refuse to extend public health insurance to additional low-income Americans. Six GOP governors — in Arizona, Michigan, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio and Nevada — have expressed support for expanding Medicaid, and the rest still need to decide what they want to do about that particular provision of the health reform law.

And even though most GOP leaders claim that expanding Medicaid would be too costly, they’re actually being lobbied by hospital companies, economists, and health care experts who all say the financial benefits — since the federal government will fully fund the first several years of expansion — are too good to turn down:

“It’s fascinating, because on the political level, it’s a classic clash between money and politics,” said Dan Mendelson, CEO of Avalere health advisory company. He said he and his 170 advisers working with the health care industry are hearing plenty about expansion.

“It sets up a really difficult tension between the Republican governors and the hospitals, but there’s an increasing level of political cover being given to the governors to expand their programs,” Mendelson said. [...]

In Florida, a recent poll found that 60% of residents would like to see Medicaid expanded, Mendelson said. Several economic studies have found the states may benefit both by federal funds going into local economies, as well as taxes from those sales going back into the coffers of local government.

The significant federal funds allocated to states that choose to expand Medicaid led the hospital industry to wonder if governors were bluffing about rejecting the expansion. That quickly proved not to be the case, as stubborn GOP politicians in some of the states with the highest rates of uninsurance in the nation still refused to cooperate with the health care reform law.

Diverse coalitions across the country have partnered to pressure resistant lawmakers to expand their Medicaid programs. The growing list of GOP governors who have accepted the optional expansion over the past few weeks seemed to signal that political deadlock may soon give way to reality, but the remaining Republican leaders may buck that trend when they eventually announce their own decisions.

View the original article here

Tony Perkins Still Believes SPLC Motivated Shooter At Family Research Council

Earlier today, Floyd Lee Corkins pleaded guilty to several counts relating to when he opened fire at the Family Research Council, injuring a guard before he was subdued. FRC’s Tony Perkins used that news to reiterate his belief that by labeling groups like his as “hate groups,” the Southern Poverty Law Center gave Corkins a “license” for violence:

PERKINS: The day after Floyd Corkins came into the FRC headquarters and opened fire wounding one of our team members, I stated that while Corkins was responsible for the shooting, he had been given a license to perpetrate this act of violence by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center which has systematically and recklessly labeled every organization with which they disagree as a “hate group.”

Today both assertions were validated in court as Corkins plead guilty to multiple criminal charges, including terrorism. The Southern Poverty Law Center can no longer say that it is not a source for those bent on committing acts of violence.  Only by ending its hate-labeling practices will the SPLC send a message that it no longer wishes to be a source for those who would commit acts of violence that are only designed to intimidate and silence Christians and others who support natural marriage and traditional morality.

Once again, I call on the SPLC to put an immediate stop to its practice of labeling organizations that oppose their promotion of homosexuality. Whether the SPLC continues to demonize those who hold to biblical morality or not, the Family Research Council will remain unequivocally committed to our mission of advancing faith, family and freedom.

Perkins’ accusation is just as “outrageous” now as it was back in August. The SPLC is simply identifying “hate” as “hate.” Contrary to Perkins’ implication, hate crimes based on sexual orientation increased in 2011 despite the fact that the overall number of hate crimes declined. Of course, he never takes responsibility for the rhetoric FRC puts forth everyday, such as this morning when he reminded the world that he believes gay men are pedophiles, despite claiming to say the opposite. In September, just moments after once again painting FRC as a victim to the SPLC, Perkins then compared homosexuality to drug abuse. It’s not hard to draw a connection between that kind of hateful rhetoric and the ongoing harassment of the LGBT community, but FRC’s “mission of advancing faith, family, and freedom” is not particularly concerned with reality.

The National Organization for Marriage, which is not itself identified as an anti-gay hate group by the SPLC, also issued a statement attacking the labels. According to Brian Brown, “irresponsible ‘hate group’ charges nearly led to a massacre at the Family Research Council.”

View the original article here

Why Medicaid Expansion Is Still Wrong for the States

Governor John Kasich now joins the list of governors that are looking to expand their Medicaid programs. In some instances, the logic of such a decision makes sense. Democratic governors have traditionally supported expanding the role of Medicaid. But the decision by Republican governors, such as Governor Jan Brewer (Ariz.), Governor Jack Dalrymple (N.D.), Governor Susana Martinez (N.M.), Governor Brian Sandoval (R., Nev.), and now Governor John Kasich (R., Ohio), is puzzling.

Like most government programs, Medicaid promises more than it delivers. While it consumes an ever increasing portion of state budgets — crowding out other state priorities, such as education and transportation — its track record for delivering quality health care to those in need falls short. Endorsing the expansion ignores these underlying problems and in some instances seems to make them worse.

Of these five Republican governors, four joined the lawsuit against the Obama administration regarding the coercive nature of the Medicaid expansion. It is troubling that now that the Medicaid expansion has been deemed voluntary not mandatory by the Supreme Court, these governors are perfectly happy to have the federal government coerce them into the expansion with the enticement of new federal dollars.

Second, many of these governors argue that the Medicaid expansion is actually good fiscal policy. These governors may be looking at a short-term bump in new federal dollars, but the longer view shows that over time this new revenue disappears and the cost of expansion continues to rise. A recent study in support of the expansion in Ohio supports this conclusion. There are also many underlying assumptions that raise further questions related to the true cost of the expansion.

One is the assumption that the federal funding will remain constant. However, here too the longer view indicates the opposite. As federal policymakers debate the course for fixing the country’s fiscal woes, it is inevitable that if these efforts are serious, entitlement programs such as Medicaid will need to be on the table. Although the administration is trying to distance itself from its previous recommendations on federal financing of Medicaid, it is impossible to guarantee that the federal dollars will remain untouched.

Some governors have made their willingness to expand the program contingent on the federal government’s keeping its funding promises. They that if the federal funding changes, the states will opt out of the expansion. Such an opt-out strategy seems difficult. It is the exception not the norm for a state to scale back its Medicaid program. As a matter of fact, while there may be periods of slowing enrollment, overall enrollment continues to climb. From a practical position, it also remains unclear the process by which a state would opt out and the role that the secretary of HHS would have in that process.

Some expansion supporters argue that choosing not to expand Medicaid would mean that a state opting out would just be leaving money on the table, and that this money will include money from the non-expanding state’s federal taxpayers. Rather than a race to the bottom to scoop up as much federal tax dollars as possible in support of a program with poor results, the better solution would be for the states to recommend that Congress eliminate the enhanced federal matching funds. That would remove the temptation of federal dollars to do bad policy.

By 2017, one in four Americans is expected to be on Medicaid. In states that are trying to jumpstart their economy, it seems governors should be working to reduce dependence on the welfare state, not add millions more to it. It should be focused on getting people back to work, not creating incentives that keep people out of work. And states should be focused on fixing the program for those who are on it today rather than dumping more people into an already broken government program.

There needs to be a better solution. Simply because a governor wants to expand Medicaid doesn’t mean the legislature has to agree. State officials should be advancing reforms at the state level that move Medicaid in the right direction, not the wrong one.

— Nina Owcharenko is Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies and the Preston A. Wells Jr. Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

View the original article here

50 Years Ago Today, JFK Called For Closing A Giant Tax Loophole…But It Still Exists

Our guest blogger is Seth Hanlon, Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

On January 24, 1963, exactly half a century ago, President John F. Kennedy called on Congress to enact a broad overhaul of the tax code. One of JFK’s boldest proposals was to close a giant tax loophole that allows wealthy people to escape taxes on capital gains — the appreciation in value of stocks, businesses, or other investments — by holding onto assets until death and passing them onto heirs.

Though JFK’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, pushed through much of the Kennedy tax program in 1964, the tax break on inherited capital gains survived. It exists to this day as one of the largest loopholes in the tax code.

The provision is sometimes called the “angel of death loophole” or, in tax-speak, the “stepup in basis at death.” Here is how it works: Let’s say an investor buys stock for $1,000 and over time it shoots up in value to $100,000. If the investor sells that stock, he’ll owe capital gains taxes on the amount it has gone up.

But if the investor holds onto the stock his whole life and bequeaths it to his heirs, the $99,000 of gain is never subject to capital gains tax. The heirs inherit the stock with what’s called a “stepped-up basis,” which means that if they sell the stock at some point, they’ll only owe capital gains tax on any gain above $100,000.

The inherited capital gains loophole has major effects on the budget, on the economy, and on tax fairness. It results in about half of all capital gains going permanently untaxed. It costs the U.S. Treasury an estimated $50 billion per year (perhaps more). It encourages people to hold onto assets even when they would otherwise want to sell them. And since capital gains are highly concentrated at the top end of the income scale, it undermines progressivity.

One of the arguments for maintaining the inherited capital gains tax break is that the estate tax provides a backstop, ensuring that large inheritances are taxed. But that argument holds less water now that the estate tax has been largely eviscerated.

In submitting his tax reform proposal to Congress, Kennedy emphasized that eliminating “the ability to avoid all capital gains taxed on assets held until death” would mean that more investors would choose “the most desirable investment[s],” not the most tax-favored ones. JFK’s proposal included a number of exceptions to address practical issues, including exempting the vast majority of people with only modest amounts of capital gains. Unfortunately, however, Congress left the loophole untouched, and subsequent efforts to address it have also come up short.

Fifty years later, Congress is again discussing tax reform, and though the inherited capital gains loophole is one of the largest tax breaks, it is rarely debated. But if Congress is committed to a balanced approach to our fiscal challenges, and serious about “base broadening” tax reform, it should revisit a half-century-old proposal that is more relevant than ever.

View the original article here

School choice: 49 million students still without options

By Robert Enlow, president and CEO, Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice - 01/23/13 11:00 AM ET

Heidi and Frank Green used to worry about their daughters while they were at school. The Clarksville, Indiana couple was concerned about bullying, cursing, large class sizes, a revolving teaching staff, and a general lack of attention for students.

Thankfully, the Greens say their lives have changed for the better as daughters Gillian and Emma are now eager to attend school. Today they are getting quality instruction at their new Catholic school thanks to a voucher program adopted in Indiana two years ago.

“School choice should be everywhere,” said Mrs. Green. “Parents should be able to decide what’s best for their kids.

Gillian and Emma are among the 255,000 students nationwide who attend a private school of their family’s choice using vouchers or tax-credit scholarships. Another 2.3 million students utilize public charter schools as their preferred option.

But there are still almost 49 million public school students throughout the country who do not have such freedom. They must attend their neighborhood public school regardless of its safety, quality, class sizes, teaching staff, or other issues outside their parents’ control. But such restriction doesn’t have to be the case.

Sunday marks the beginning of the third annual National School Choice Week, which runs through Feb. 2. There will be 3,000 events across 50 states including rallies and forums where parents will ask lawmakers for more choices for their kids.

National School Choice Week highlights the private, charter, online and home school education options available to families and those stuck with a school assigned to them by their address. Parents can choose public or private colleges for their children using many federal and state aid programs. They should be able to do the same with K-12 schools.

After major school choice victories last fall in which Washington voters agreed to allow charter schools to open in the state and Georgia voters agreed to an easier path to create more charters, a host of other states will consider additional school choice measures in 2013. Among the highlights:

•    Tennessee’s governor will include a school voucher program in his legislative package.
•    The Texas legislature will consider a program in which taxpayers would receive tax credits for donations they make to nonprofits that provide private school scholarships for low-income students.
•    Mississippi’s governor proposed a private school choice program for students in underperforming public schools.
•    North Carolina’s lawmakers will review proposals for opportunity scholarships and quite possibly education savings accounts, a new type of private school choice available only in Arizona.
•    Alaska lawmakers will vote on a school voucher plan for all students statewide regardless of their family income.
•    Indiana’s new governor has proposed expanding its voucher program to increase scholarship amounts and student eligibility.
•    Maine lawmakers will hear a proposal from their governor to give children school vouchers.

Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, the father of the school choice concept, believed that offering parents education options other than their neighborhood school would not only be good for children but would improve education. Studies show school choice is helping children in their new schools and those who don’t participate – something vitally important when so many children don’t get a quality education.

The Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University found that high school dropouts are more dependent on government assistance such as food stamps, housing assistance, and Medicaid. They are also more likely to be in jail or prison, another cost to federal, state, and local taxpayers. And unemployment rates are highest among dropouts, according to the study.

If our society is to address its burgeoning debt problem and give young people a chance to become successful, offering parents an opportunity to access high-quality schools is a path to prosperity for themselves, their children, and society.

In several states, policymakers are ensuring more students have access to the schools, public or private, that work best for them. National School Choice Week is the time to shine a spotlight on those leaders and anyone else working to make sure every family is free to choose in education.

Enlow is president and CEO of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, the legacy foundation of Nobel laureate Milton Friedman and his wife Rose.

View Comments

View the original article here

House Republicans Still Hate Spending Cuts

Last week, the House passed H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, by a vote of 247-163, providing $51.131 billion in discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2013. That’s $1.61 billion or 3% below the amount of funding provided for these programs in fiscal year 2012–and $731 million or 1.4% below the amount requested by the president for fiscal year 2013.

Not terrible, but clearly there was room to cut more spending, right? Surely House Republicans realized that Americans want them to cut more spending than 3%–and be more than 1.4% below where President Obama is, right?

Right?

Well, some conservative amendments did indeed pass. See these, for example:

Diane Black (R-TN) – Prohibits the use of funds by the Attorney General to sue states over their immigration laws. Passed 238-173.Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) – Prohibits DOJ from using funds to defend Obamacare. Passed 229-194.Paul Broun (R-GA) – Cuts $181,000 from the Marine Mammal Commission. Passed by voice vote.Bill Flores (R-TX) – Prohibits funding to continue the ban on federal procurement of unconventional fuels. Passed 250-173.Trey Gowdy (R-SC) – Cut $1 million from the DOJ Administrative Account for Fast and Furious Program. Passed by voice vote.Rep Andy Harris (R-MD) – Cut $542,000 from NOAA Climate Website. Passed 219-189.Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) – Prohibits the use of funds by DOJ in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act. Passed 245-171.Ben Quayle (R-AZ) – Blocks Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance that limits employers from looking at criminal records. Passed by voice vote.David Schweikert (R-AZ) – Prohibits the use of funds by the Attorney General to sue states over their voter ID laws. Passed 232-190.Joe Walsh (R-IL) – Prohibits funding for sanctuary cities. Passed by voice vote.Daniel Webster (R-FL) – Prohibits funding for the American Community Survey. Passed 232-190.

But check out these conservative amendments that failed–and by how much they failed:

Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) – 1% across-the-board cut to discretionary spending. Defeated 160-251.Paul Broun (R-GA) – A 3% cut to all salaries and expenses—as well as administrative costs—in the bill, for a total savings of $847 million. Defeated 137-270.Paul Broun (R-GA) – 12.2% across-the-board cut, exempting US Marshals, FBI, and NASA. Defeated 105-307.Paul Broun (R-GA) – Cuts $15 million from the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery program. Defeated 168-239.Jeff Flake (R-AZ) – Cuts the National Science Foundation to fiscal year 2008 levels, for a total savings of $1.2 billion. Defeated 121-291.Bill Huizenga (R-MI) – Strikes the provision that bans public-private sector competition within the Bureau of Prisons and Federal Prison Industries. Defeated 199-211.Tom McClintock (R-CA) – Cuts $277.8 million from the International Trade Administration. Defeated 121-287.Mike Pompeo (R-KS) – Eliminates all funding for the Economic Development Agency (EDA), for a total savings of $219.5 million. Defeated 129-279.Ben Quayle (R-AZ) – Eliminates funding for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia, for a total savings of $21 million. Defeated 147-259.Steve Scalise (R-LA) – Reduces Economic Development Administration funding to fiscal year 2008 levels, for a total savings of $18.2 million. Defeated 174-233.Austin Scott (R-GA) – Eliminates all funding for the Legal Services Corporation, for a total savings of $328 million. Defeated 122-289.Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) – Cuts $128 million from the Legal Services Corporation. Defeated 165-246.

Are you kidding me?

House Republicans can’t come together to cut an additional 1%? Not $128 million from the much-hated Legal Services Corporation? Not $15 million from a salmon program?

House Republicans are still deaf to your requests to cut more spending. Make sure they hear you.

View the original article here

Tech at Night: FTC makes a move, FCC still trouble, NAM backs SECURE IT

So we already had the coming FCC battle over Verizon’s attempts to acquire the spectrum it needs, the Senate fight over ‘cybersecurity,’ and a possible Congressional fight over Internet sales taxation. But now there’s a new issue to keep track of: the FTC is taking it upon itself to regulate the Internet on the grounds of protecting privacy. Jim Harper seems thinks it’s nothing new, but under the Obama administration, I’m more concerned. Still Adam Thierer also says it could have been worse, though, but also mentions those dirty words ‘personal responsibility.’ Can’t have that.

Democrats are eager to empower the Obama administration, of course. That’s why we need a Republican Senate to go with a Republican House.

They’re not calling it Net Neutrality now that it’s all about restricting choice and empowering government to regulate the Internet, but the George Soros-funded Public Knowledge is called for Net Neut action against Comcast. On the Open Internet, your choices of Internet service are closed to what government decides you are allowed to have.

More FCC: the push continues for the FCC to continue to be a spectrum roadblock against Verizon, contrary to every goal of universal access it claims to have. That’s because universal access is supposed to be code for subsidies, not actual pro-growth, pro-investment policies that allow market signals to guide spectrum to the more efficient uses.

Naturally the White House opposes FCC reform which would return power back to legislators, not regulators. Can’t have that. Too much respect for the Constitution, which is over 100 years old.

I’ve actually been reading up on export controls lately, so when I see this seemingly-harmless plan to control export of censorship technology to unfree countries, I question whether it’s a good idea. We already have many cabinet-level departments doing export controls, plus a new directorate Obama created in 2010 which complicated the situation further. We might need simplification before we add more complication.

Apple and its publisher allies are probably about to get smacked hard as the agency pricing scandal comes out, where Amazon was pressured into taking the deal Apple wrote.

Support for the broad-based GOP alternative cybersecurity bill, SECURE IP, grows with NAM praising the proposal. SECURE IT’s light touch, and information sharing approach is much better than the massive power grab of the Lieberman-Collins bill.

View the original article here