Larry Mishel and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, “People’s Budget” vs. Republican Plan

Larry Mishel and Rep. Jan Schakowsky on the Economic Policy Institutes’ blog:

The annual federal budget debate typically doesn’t excite many folks outside the Washington beltway.  And with good reason—the Republican budget process is intended to lull the public to sleep by staying short on details and long on damaging provisions that will hurt low-income and middle-class families.

But folks should pay attention to the debate because budgets have consequences—and if done right, they can truly move our country forward. The “People’s Budget,” which we both helped prepare, is a bold and responsible alternative to the Republican plans that take from working families while giving more to corporations and the wealthy.

The GOP budgets proposed in Congress would cut about $5 trillion over the next decade. The overwhelming burden would fall on programs that boost working families: education, Medicare and Medicaid, college aid, job training, medical research and rebuilding roads and bridges. Tens of millions of Americans would lose health insurance and millions more would lose food stamps or be priced out of college.

Republicans push these devastating cuts as a path to a balanced budget. But their budgets have been widely panned by experts as being based on “magic asterisks.” While they’re comfortable putting the squeeze on working families who will be most affected by these cuts in benefits and services, they refuse to ask corporations and the wealthy to contribute one thin dime to the effort. In fact, not one tax loophole is closed by their budgets.

Continue reading

Thought for the Day: 25 March 2015

Nothing is more common, or more useless, than a precisely accurate answer to the wrong question. Too much of what passes for policy analysis starts with finding available datasets and running them through a regression program, rather than asking “What is it we actually need to know to make this decision?”

A back-of-the-envelope calculation (BOTEC) starts with the question and then uses the best information available – even if that information is only approximate – to figure out the relevant answer. Sometimes that sort of rough calculation leaves the right course of action in doubt. That’s the time to roll up your sleeves and go collect some new data or do fancier analysis.

But, as often as not, the answer is clear once the key factors have been written down. Once you know that Option A is roughly 10 times as good as Option B, figuring out whether it’s actually 10.13926 times as good or only 9.81352 times as good is pretty much a waste of time compared to figuring out how to put Option A into practice.

(source)

Thought for the Day: 24 March 2014

Driftglass on the occasion of Ted Cruz declaring his candidacy for President of the United States:

Life forms like Ted Cruz are the inevitable price the country is paying for the sin of Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy — the day the GOP decided to go went all-in the crazies, and all the respectable people in town reacted by looking the other way and/or finding a hippie to punish. Of course, fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of  raving idiots running the Party of Lincoln may speedily pass away.

But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

The amount of time and money plutocrats have sunk into turning America’s yokels and snake handlers and dimwits and bigots into a Great Big Fucking Hammer has been mind-blowing, and what they have built with their money and influence is really a political engineering marvel: a self-contained, proudly ignorant, red-white-and-blue fascism, assembled right out in the open while being conspicuously ignored by virtually our entire elite American political media persons.

ADDENDUM:  Read that 1961 article by Alan Westin, The John Birch Society

Weekly Digest – March 22, 2015

Must Read

Should Read

More on the House Republicans’ Budget Proposal

Continue reading

Senate Committee Debates Whether to Allow H-1B Guestworkers to Replace U.S. IT Workers

This relates to an earlier post, Using the H-1B visa program to screw American workers.   From Ross Eisenbrey, Senate Committee Debates Whether to Allow H-1B Guestworkers to Replace U.S. IT Workers:

The Senate Judiciary Committee explored important economic questions this week. Should businesses be able to lay off qualified U.S. tech workers and replace them with lower paid foreign workers? Is there a shortage of skilled Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) workers—or an oversupply? And even if there is such a shortage, should we import temporary non-immigrant labor from abroad, or would it be better to let the free market work long enough for wages to rise and more students to be attracted to these fields?

The committee’s Republican and Democratic members disagreed with each other without regard to party labels. No senator, in fact, seemed more concerned about the rights of U.S. workers and their economic outcomes—and more skeptical of claims made by the business community—than Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a conservative, anti-union Republican. Two Democrats, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took the side of big business, along with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Jeff Flake, while Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) defended the interests of U.S. workers.

Politics makes strange bedfellows.  Reading on:

Most Americans probably think it is illegal to lay off an U.S. worker and replace him with a temporary foreign worker. Yet Prof. Ron Hira and several other witnesses testified that this is not just a common practice, it is the primary use of the H-1B visa program….

Read Eisenbrey’s entire post here. Related links:

Late addition, 11/23/2015:

Thought for the Day: 18 March 2015

What amazes me about economists is their lack of curiousity. They have an amazingly interesting subject, a wealth of material to unearth, digest, analyse, a range of fascinating research in relate fields to draw upon and integrate into their field, and yet they seem largely content to sit around and play with theoretical models, occasionally testing them against some very restricted set of numbers. Climate scientists climb glaciers, take tree cores and lake sediment samples, painstakingly check changes in gauge locations and surroundings [Ed.: and build and launch Earth-observing satellites and digest volumes of data they generate]; physicists build colliders and measure the rotation of distant galaxies; sociologists talk to slum dwellers. Economists mostly seem to find visting the local factory or labour exchange a bit hard. Why do they have so little fun?

Peter T