So Republican candidate for Governor Greg Abbott recently accused Democratic candidate Wendy Davis of wanting to raise Texans' taxes by $35 billion.
Ho hum.
Politifact then suggested that Abbott was full of it.
What else is new?
What Davis suggested that she wanted to do was put together a board of state officials to examine exemptions from current state taxes to see if they were still warranted, most notably the gas tax and the sales tax. She said she she didn't want to raise current tax rates, but wanted to especially examine the $36 billion in sales tax exemptions.
This is good policy, and I'm supportive of the review (particularly of a several odd-looking exemptions, like those surrounding aircraft....)
But when it comes to taxes, I (as a naive carpetbagging Yankee) would like to see Texas adopt a personal income tax; it's currently one of nine states without one. That might be political suicide for Davis right now, so I don't blame her for not bringing it up. Over the long-term, however implementing an income tax will diversify and stabilize state revenues while redistributing the tax burden to the upper class and away from more vulnerable state residents.
Take the jump for more details.....
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Millett and Watt confirmations imminent?
I just checked up on the Senate Executive Nominations Calendar, and the following two names appear on the first page:
(Rule XXII is what gives the minority its filibuster power)
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENTS
Melvin L. Watt (Cal. No. 209)
Ordered, That with respect to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Melvin L. Watt, of North Carolina, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency for a term of five years, the mandatory quorum required under Rule XXII be waived.
(October 28, 2013.)
Patricia Ann Millett (Cal. No. 327)
Ordered, That with respect to the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Patricia Ann Millett, of Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit, the mandatory quorum required under Rule XXII be waived.
(October 28, 2013)
(Rule XXII is what gives the minority its filibuster power)
Both Watt and Millett have been the subject of attacks from Republicans who want to block a more active Federal Housing Agency (which has been without a permanent head for years) and keep the President from placing any more nominees on the D.C Circuit Court.
The DC Circuit is considered the second-most important court in the country, because it has jurisdiction over all federal agencies and its Conservative appointees have slowed or blocked the ability of federal agencies to protect worker rights, increase oversight on banks and other financial institutions, and protect the environment.
Millett is probably the least controversial of the three appointees for the D.C. Circuit Court, while Nina Pollard is the most controversial (she is known for her strong feminist views and record on Civil Rights; apparently believing in gender equality and civil rights is controversial nowadays)
I wonder if a deal has gone down trading Millett, Watt, Obama's other D.C. Circuit nominee Robert Wilkens, and Tom Wheeler as FCC chair in exchange for Pollard withdrawing her candidacy. I'd hate to lose Pollard's candidacy, but if Obama gets to name another appointee of his choice, it's win-win-win for the Democrats.
I'm also wondering if Harry Reid has 51 votes to end the filibuster, at least for certain types of judicial nominees. That would explain the GOP's sudden move to surrender on two nominees that they hate a lot.
Either way, if this is true, it is good news for sane public policy.
(Note: please feel free to tell me if I'm misreading the Sen. Executive calendar -- it's entirely possible, though I tried to do my homework here.)
(UPDATE: 10/31: And Watt just got filibustered. Looks like I was wrong. Nuts.)
(UPDATE: 10/31: And Watt just got filibustered. Looks like I was wrong. Nuts.)
Thoughts on Planned Parenthood vs. Abbott
Scott Lemieux has good take on Planned Parenthood vs. Abbott, the case that overturned several of the most controversial provisions of Texas' recent law design to limit access to abortion last summer.
Currently the controlling standard governing states' ability to enact statutes regulating access to abortion is Planned Parenthood vs Casey, which holds that states can regulate abortion so long as it doesn't provide an "unreasonable burden."
Since Sam Alito and John Roberts joined the court, however, rulings haven't overturned Casey or Roe vs. Wade, but generally have reduced it to a shell by finding that many individual regulations -- notably a ban on so-called "partial birth" abortion don't produce a meaningful burden.
With the wave of state legislation in Kansas, Mississippi, Texas, South Dakota and other states seeking to regulate abortion clinics out of business, we're going to find out if Casey actually means anything.
What's notable in the Texas case, as Lemieux points out, is that district judge Lee Yeakal's ruling would actually "put some teeth" back in Casey by suggesting that there is no rational basis to require certain "safety" regulations on abortion providers, most notably the requirement that doctors have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
This case is mostly a win for reproductive rights advocates, but it did uphold a part of the law requiring doctors to adhere to (arguably outdated) FDA protocols for administering abortion-inducing drugs (though it narrowed the requirement considerably).
The ruling doesn't end things, as Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has already appealed. The next venue, the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals is notoriously conservative and has overturned several district rulings protecting abortion access in the past. (Here's hoping that this winner isn't on the panel that hears the case)
This case, along with others, is probably going to end up at the Supreme Court, where the fate of Roe vs. Wade may hang on what Anthony Kennedy ate for breakfast on the morning of oral arguments.
Currently the controlling standard governing states' ability to enact statutes regulating access to abortion is Planned Parenthood vs Casey, which holds that states can regulate abortion so long as it doesn't provide an "unreasonable burden."
Since Sam Alito and John Roberts joined the court, however, rulings haven't overturned Casey or Roe vs. Wade, but generally have reduced it to a shell by finding that many individual regulations -- notably a ban on so-called "partial birth" abortion don't produce a meaningful burden.
With the wave of state legislation in Kansas, Mississippi, Texas, South Dakota and other states seeking to regulate abortion clinics out of business, we're going to find out if Casey actually means anything.
What's notable in the Texas case, as Lemieux points out, is that district judge Lee Yeakal's ruling would actually "put some teeth" back in Casey by suggesting that there is no rational basis to require certain "safety" regulations on abortion providers, most notably the requirement that doctors have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
This case is mostly a win for reproductive rights advocates, but it did uphold a part of the law requiring doctors to adhere to (arguably outdated) FDA protocols for administering abortion-inducing drugs (though it narrowed the requirement considerably).
The ruling doesn't end things, as Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has already appealed. The next venue, the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals is notoriously conservative and has overturned several district rulings protecting abortion access in the past. (Here's hoping that this winner isn't on the panel that hears the case)
This case, along with others, is probably going to end up at the Supreme Court, where the fate of Roe vs. Wade may hang on what Anthony Kennedy ate for breakfast on the morning of oral arguments.
Ben Hall comes out against LGBT rights
This is not cool. Via Kuffner
I was already leaning one way in this mayoral election. Mr Hall's actions just confirmed that choice.
I was already leaning one way in this mayoral election. Mr Hall's actions just confirmed that choice.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Overcoming discomfort with the ACA's Individual Mandate
Here's the thing about the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act: Everyone loves to hate it.
The mandate is a critical part of the ACA. If you want to mandate that an insurer universally issue policies all applicants at similar prices regardless of pre-existing conditions, you have to prevent healthy people from free-riding outside the system until they get sick. If only sick people purchase insurance, premiums may go up and a spiral out of control. By inducing healthy people into the insurance pool through a mandate to purchase health insurance, we can lower overall costs and keep insurance affordable for everyone.
And yes, empirical research suggests that individual mandate will come in quite handy in persuading healthy people to buy insurance, as this New England Journal of Medicine study suggests.
Conservatives hate the mandate because they argue that it violates people's freedom not to buy a product. I suspect that many of them also object to it because it makes rich and healthy people ("makers", "job creators" "real Americans") pay insurance premiums that will benefit poorer and sicker people ("takers," "moochers" "the 47 percent.")
Or maybe they just hate it because a group of center-left reformers embraced it after Conservatives first introduced the idea.
Some liberals in turn hate the mandate because they think makes people give money to evil insurance companies for lousy products. I also suspect that they find the mandate's narrative emphasis on "personal responsibility" a bit off-putting when they feel that the major idea is creating a universal right to health care.
For more, follow me below the jump.
The mandate is a critical part of the ACA. If you want to mandate that an insurer universally issue policies all applicants at similar prices regardless of pre-existing conditions, you have to prevent healthy people from free-riding outside the system until they get sick. If only sick people purchase insurance, premiums may go up and a spiral out of control. By inducing healthy people into the insurance pool through a mandate to purchase health insurance, we can lower overall costs and keep insurance affordable for everyone.
And yes, empirical research suggests that individual mandate will come in quite handy in persuading healthy people to buy insurance, as this New England Journal of Medicine study suggests.
Conservatives hate the mandate because they argue that it violates people's freedom not to buy a product. I suspect that many of them also object to it because it makes rich and healthy people ("makers", "job creators" "real Americans") pay insurance premiums that will benefit poorer and sicker people ("takers," "moochers" "the 47 percent.")
Or maybe they just hate it because a group of center-left reformers embraced it after Conservatives first introduced the idea.
Some liberals in turn hate the mandate because they think makes people give money to evil insurance companies for lousy products. I also suspect that they find the mandate's narrative emphasis on "personal responsibility" a bit off-putting when they feel that the major idea is creating a universal right to health care.
For more, follow me below the jump.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Thoughts on unemployment (specifically mine)
One of the points of this blog was for me to reflect upon what it feels like to be unemployed. I've gotten away from that over the last month or two as I've focused a lot on health care and a bit on local Houston politics.
But the unemployment frustration continues. Academic hiring processes move on very slow timeline. Even if I get a job, it won't start paying or providing health insurance until July 1, 2014 at the earliest.
Second, is that many institutions aren't looking to give new scholars fresh out of grad school a chance.
For example, there have been 23 jobs posted in American politics on APSA's job site over the last month that are hiring for tenure-track positions. However, one is for a full professor, which indicates that a school is looking for a senior level hire. Three more are for "open-and-multiple" ranks, which mean that the school is nominally looking for anyone who might be a good fit. However, everyone knows that these positions are reserved for mid-career or senior scholars.
That leaves 19 positions hiring for assistant professors, but based on the rejection letters I have received and informal conversations I've had with my colleagues, a substantial number of these slots will go to candidates who are already assistant professors at other institutions. Having had a year or two a research support, salary and other resources will make their CVs much stronger than those of us just out of grad school.
It seems that many institutions (by no means all, but enough) aren't really interested in rolling the dice on developing a new scholar when they can simply raid an established one from another school.
It's understandable -- department rankings in U.S. News and World Report are at stake here.
So that's what happens in our field. Just like all the other fields, candidates who already hold down existing jobs get preferences, while those struggling to break into the field (or worse yet, those who have been unemployed for a year or two) don't have as much of a chance. The rich get richer and those of us struggling to get into the game lose what little we currently have.
A senior academic with whom I recently corresponded (not on my committee or at a school to which I have sent an application) tried to offer some emotional support. He suggested that the process is full of opaque things that are unobservable to me. He suggested that I should exercise to stay healthy and relieve my stress.
He meant well.
What would relieve my stress is being able to have a salary.
What would relieve my stress is being able to have affordable health insurance.
What would relieve my stress would be having research funding so I have a fighting chance of doing original work before some group of scholars who are better funded and better connected beat me to the punch again.
What would relieve my stress is being able to save for my retirement.
What would relieve my stress is not worrying about having to move my fiance all over the country
when she has her own career to develop.
What would relieve my stress is having a professional identity so I can stop changing the topic when people ask me what I do for a living.
.... which are all things that senior people in academia and other lines of work often take for granted every single day.
Sigh. But I guess, maybe the stress is my fault and if I were to start a regular program of exercise, I would be in a much better state of mind. Maybe like this guy.
This week I'll weigh in on a few ballot measures and some other health care issues. Sometime soon I hope to have a broader post up about the state of play in Texas politics for 2014.
But the unemployment frustration continues. Academic hiring processes move on very slow timeline. Even if I get a job, it won't start paying or providing health insurance until July 1, 2014 at the earliest.
Second, is that many institutions aren't looking to give new scholars fresh out of grad school a chance.
For example, there have been 23 jobs posted in American politics on APSA's job site over the last month that are hiring for tenure-track positions. However, one is for a full professor, which indicates that a school is looking for a senior level hire. Three more are for "open-and-multiple" ranks, which mean that the school is nominally looking for anyone who might be a good fit. However, everyone knows that these positions are reserved for mid-career or senior scholars.
That leaves 19 positions hiring for assistant professors, but based on the rejection letters I have received and informal conversations I've had with my colleagues, a substantial number of these slots will go to candidates who are already assistant professors at other institutions. Having had a year or two a research support, salary and other resources will make their CVs much stronger than those of us just out of grad school.
It seems that many institutions (by no means all, but enough) aren't really interested in rolling the dice on developing a new scholar when they can simply raid an established one from another school.
It's understandable -- department rankings in U.S. News and World Report are at stake here.
So that's what happens in our field. Just like all the other fields, candidates who already hold down existing jobs get preferences, while those struggling to break into the field (or worse yet, those who have been unemployed for a year or two) don't have as much of a chance. The rich get richer and those of us struggling to get into the game lose what little we currently have.
A senior academic with whom I recently corresponded (not on my committee or at a school to which I have sent an application) tried to offer some emotional support. He suggested that the process is full of opaque things that are unobservable to me. He suggested that I should exercise to stay healthy and relieve my stress.
He meant well.
What would relieve my stress is being able to have a salary.
What would relieve my stress is being able to have affordable health insurance.
What would relieve my stress would be having research funding so I have a fighting chance of doing original work before some group of scholars who are better funded and better connected beat me to the punch again.
What would relieve my stress is being able to save for my retirement.
What would relieve my stress is not worrying about having to move my fiance all over the country
when she has her own career to develop.
What would relieve my stress is having a professional identity so I can stop changing the topic when people ask me what I do for a living.
.... which are all things that senior people in academia and other lines of work often take for granted every single day.
Sigh. But I guess, maybe the stress is my fault and if I were to start a regular program of exercise, I would be in a much better state of mind. Maybe like this guy.
This week I'll weigh in on a few ballot measures and some other health care issues. Sometime soon I hope to have a broader post up about the state of play in Texas politics for 2014.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Houston Half-Marathon blogging
Good day at the Houston Half-Marathon and Relay.
... aside from the one-hour freak flash thunderstorm that arrived at precisely 6:30 a.m. to delay the start by an hour and wreck all our carefully calibrated warm-up and digestive routines. I felt bad for all those runners caught out in the open (I just happened to be on the Sam Houston Heritage's society building's spacious front porch.
Though I must say, running in a rain shower when it's 65 degrees out sure beats running in the sun when its 98 degrees out in this town. I think I also came home drier too.
But in any case that feeling of flying up the home stretch after a great race is one that every runner craves. I also richly appreciated the strategic and generous application of spectator cow bell on mile 12.
1 hour, 38 minutes, 37.7 seconds. New PR -- and I probably had a bit left in the tank. Sure, it's not going to get me into the winner's circle, but it's pretty darn good for an civilian.
Time for two weeks of down time with lots of stretching and rest for bits and pieces that hurt, then I get to plot my next race. Probably something shorter in December. I haven't put together a good 5K in two years, and haven't ever put up a 10k time. It'd be interesting to see what I could do at that distance.
... aside from the one-hour freak flash thunderstorm that arrived at precisely 6:30 a.m. to delay the start by an hour and wreck all our carefully calibrated warm-up and digestive routines. I felt bad for all those runners caught out in the open (I just happened to be on the Sam Houston Heritage's society building's spacious front porch.
Though I must say, running in a rain shower when it's 65 degrees out sure beats running in the sun when its 98 degrees out in this town. I think I also came home drier too.
But in any case that feeling of flying up the home stretch after a great race is one that every runner craves. I also richly appreciated the strategic and generous application of spectator cow bell on mile 12.
1 hour, 38 minutes, 37.7 seconds. New PR -- and I probably had a bit left in the tank. Sure, it's not going to get me into the winner's circle, but it's pretty darn good for an civilian.
Time for two weeks of down time with lots of stretching and rest for bits and pieces that hurt, then I get to plot my next race. Probably something shorter in December. I haven't put together a good 5K in two years, and haven't ever put up a 10k time. It'd be interesting to see what I could do at that distance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)