Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Short Shots: Race and other matters in America

newspapers 1

It has now been 190 days since Judge Merrick Garland was nominated for a position on the US Supreme Court.  This is the longest wait for any nominee, and the U.S. Senate has not even had the courtesy to hold a hearing on his nomination.  Senator Majority Leader McConnell has a very strange idea of what it means to do his job.  McConnell has also refused to schedule votes on two nominees for the federal bench who are African American, over Senator Cory Booker’s objections. [NorthJersey]  Partisanship and racial bias at play? Why else would a perfectly qualified nominee for the Supreme Court nominated by an African American president, and two African American district court nominees not get a vote?

newspapers 1

How’s this for a howler?

“Donald Trump’s campaign chair in a prominent Ohio county has claimed there was “no racism” during the 1960s and said black people who have not succeeded over the past half-century only have themselves to blame.

Kathy Miller, who is white and chair of the Republican nominee’s campaign in Mahoning County, made the remarks during a taped interview with the Guardian’s Anywhere but Washington series of election videos.”

But Wait! Ms Miller wasn’t finished:

“Miller also dismissed the racial tensions of the 1960s, when she said she graduated from high school. “Growing up as a kid, there was no racism, believe me. We were just all kids going to school.”

Asked about segregation and the civil rights movement, she replied: “I never experienced it. I never saw that as anything.”

Miller added: “I don’t think there was any racism until Obama got elected. We never had problems like this … Now, with the people with the guns, and shooting up neighborhoods, and not being responsible citizens, that’s a big change, and I think that’s the philosophy that Obama has perpetuated on America.” [Guardian]

This from quite possibly the most self referential self absorbed individual available for the County Trump Campaign committee?

newspapers 1

Let’s put this canard to rest – there is NO widespread voter fraud; there isn’t even any widespread potential for voter impersonation fraud.

      • “Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a longtime proponent of voter suppression efforts, argued before state lawmakers that his office needed special power to prosecute voter fraud, because he knew of 100 such cases in his state. After being granted these powers, he has brought six such cases, of which only four have been successful. The secretary has also testified about his review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states, which yielded 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution, which amounts to a 0.00000017 percent fraud rate.” [Brennan Center]

That isn’t statistically significant in any rational analysis, so let’s just call this what it is – a fraudulent campaign to reduce the number of legitimate Democratic voters.

newspapers 1

Representative Joe Heck (R-NV3) is still running to be Division commander, with an ad that compares himself going to “put his boots in the sand with soldiers” while Cortez Masto took “vacation days.”  All 174 of them in eight years.  If we were being tacky we could say Heck was paid for those 460 days he was deployed – so it was at taxpayer expense, but we’re not being tacky we’d just notice that he’s really dragging out the militarism for this campaign.   By the way, had Cortez Masto not attended national conferences he’d probably be whining she didn’t represent Nevada when she had the opportunity.

newspapers 1

Here’s a nice shot! Compliments of Astrid Silva – 795 new U.S. / Nevada citizens taking the oath at Cashman Field.  Welcome to America!

New Nevada Citizens Have a good day!

Comments Off on Short Shots: Race and other matters in America

Filed under Heck, McConnell, Nevada politics, Politics, racism, Republicans, Vote Suppression

Cases of Interest in the Pipeline

 Gavel If we can tear ourselves away for a moment from the Pelagian morality play, or circus act, on stage in Kentucky, there are some other interesting cases which are winding through the U.S. courts.

Shapiro v. McManus:  A case brought by a Maryland Republican who believes the Democrats gerrymandered districts after the 2010 census.  What make this interesting is that Shapiro is contending his case should have been heard by a three judge panel – which would put it on a fast track to the Supreme Court. [ScotusBlog, Baltimore Sun]  Those watching voting rights and political cases may want to keep track of this one.

Arizona v. U.S.:  The immigration issue, and the legal status or protections related thereto, is central to this long running case based on the Papers Please Arizona law otherwise known as SB 1070. The case is back in the news:

“Challengers of Arizona’s landmark immigration law failed to show that police would enforce the statute differently for Latinos than they would for people of other ethnicities, a judge said in a ruling that dismissed the last of seven challenges to the law.

The ruling could signal the end of the case and gave a victory to backers of the law, which was approved in 2010.

In her order Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton dismissed the challenge and upheld provisions that were previously ruled on by appeals courts.” [LA Times]

Stay tuned.

Whole Women’s Health et al v. Cole:  The case has been filed by Planned Parenthood supporters in Texas challenging the “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.”  (pdf)  The petition raises some crucial questions and is highly recommended reading. (h/t Scotusblog]

Okay, if we really can’t avoid the Rowan County clerk’s exercise in liberum arbitrium, ( the moral strength of man’s will when steeled by asceticism is sufficient in itself to desire and attain the loftiest ideal of virtue ) then there are some interesting and informative articles available which go beyond sideshow reportage:

  • Marty Lederman “Further strangeness in the Kim Davis Case,” Balkinizaton blog September 7, 2015.  Mark Graber “A Different Take on Kim Davis, Balkinization, September 5, 2015.
  • Lyle Denniston “A New Legal Cloud over same-sex marriage in Kentucky,” Scotus Blog, September 3, 2015.
  • Charles J. Reid, “No Refuge in Scripture or in Law,” Huffington Post, September 5, 2015.
  • Garrett Epps, “The fatal flaw in Davis’s appeal,” Atlantic, September 2, 2015.
  • Brian Tashman, “Five Bizarre Arguments Kim Davis’ Supporters Have Used To Defend Her Lawbreaking,” Right Wing Watch, September 4, 2015.

Comments Off on Cases of Interest in the Pipeline

Filed under abortion, conservatism, Immigration, Judicial, Voting, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

Cost Benefit Analysis Scramble

Cost Benefit Analysis

One of the dark clouds on the week that was in the U.S. Supreme Court was the decision in Michigan v. the Environmental Protection Agency, one portion of which reads:

“Our reasoning so far establishes that it was unreasonable for EPA to read §7412(n)(1)(A) to mean that cost is irrelevant to the initial decision to regulate power plants. The Agency must consider cost—including, most importantly, cost of compliance—before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary,…”

Important Distinctions

First, let’s differentiate between a CBA (a cost benefit analysis) and a Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA).   There are two important functions of a CBA: (1) To determine if an investment or a decision is justifiable or feasible. (2) To provide a way to compare and contrast alternative projects or proposals. Additionally, “In CBA, benefits and costs are expressed in monetary terms, and are adjusted for the time value of money, so that all flows of benefits and flows of project costs over time (which tend to occur at different points in time) are expressed on a common basis in terms of their “net present value.”

The most common use of the CEA is found in the health sector.  In a CEA  the outcome is expressed as a ratio.  The denominator is the quantified gain, while the numerator is the cost associated with the gains.  For example, we know that sterilized surgical theaters yield quantifiable positive results for patients, therefore the costs associated with sterilization far outweigh the costs of sanitizing the facilities.

Another analysis which gets folded into the mixture is the analysis of the Social Return on Investment, or abbreviated SROI.  There are four elements considered: Inputs (investments), Outputs (products), Outcomes (benefits), and Impact (difference between the policy or practice change and what would have happened if nothing had been done.) [Investopedia]

There are other formats for analysis:  Cost/utility analysis; Risk/benefit analysis; and the Economic impact/analysis.  The definitions and descriptions of these forms are readily available from online sources.

The problem is that the CBA isn’t a static form of analysis.  Just as each problem in both the public and private sector has unique factors, the CBA may take on some elements from other formats – the CEA, the SROI, and the others.  Often the term “CBA” is used with great precision, i.e. it returns a study yielding a net present value.  There are other examples illustrating how the term CBA in common parlance and news reporting is an admixture of individual studies speaking to the CEA ratios, or the SROI elements.

As in so many other unfortunate instances, the cost/benefit analysis has come to mean what the partisan advocates want it to mean. One of the pitfalls involved in being a good consumer of news and political rhetoric is that the listener is required to sort out precisely what analysis is being described or advocated. The most common source of confusion comes when a CBA is conflated with an Economic Impact Study:

“One industry’s outputs are inputs to other industries, and vice versa. Input-output analysis measures all of the linkages and flows within the matrix (the economy). Based on these linkages and flows, the cumulative effect of any given stimulus (or change) can be derived. This is how multipliers are calculated.” [Decision Analyst Ser]

A public sector example might be that of a decision to build a public broadband access system.  This would trigger spending for infrastructure necessities for the system, which in turn increases employee and contractor income, causing (in sequence) more disposable spending for the local (or national) economy.  If we study the “linkages and flows” as the the project impacts the community we can calculate the cumulative “economic impact.”

So, when politicians speak to the necessity of doing cost/benefit analyses on government regulation it’s important to pin them down on precisely what form of analysis they are advocating, and how the form of the analysis can influence the reported results.

Good news Bad news

The bad news from the Michigan v. EPA  decision is that the EPA is required to perform a cost benefit analysis on emission regulations promoted by the EPA.  The slightly better news is that the decision doesn’t do what corporate radicals want – dismantle the EPA. Nor does the decision declare that the EPA may not issue rules on carbon or other pollutant emissions, granted that it does constitute another shackle on the Agency’s attempt to clear the air.

One way to support the efforts of the EPA to enforce the provisions of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts might be be advocate for more, not less, study – studies which incorporate the CEA elements (health benefits included) and SROI quadrants which incorporate social benefits.

The argument that government regulations should hinge upon the notion that private sector operations should agree that the regulations are “not too expensive,” is a narrow, corporatist, perspective, and one which would all but insure no regulation of exploiters and polluters.  A better approach is to take into consideration the cumulative economic impact of regulations and the social returns we can make on our national investments.

Comments Off on Cost Benefit Analysis Scramble

Filed under ecology, Economy

Alito’s Worst Decision?

On May 27, 2014 Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court in the case of Plumhoff et. al. vs. Rickard. (pdf)  Mr. Rickard was killed, along with a passenger in his car, by gun fire from police pursuing him after a traffic stop.  The decision found that the use of deadly force was justifiable considering the threat to public safety posed by Mr. Rickard’s reckless high speed getaway attempt, Rickard’s 4th Amendment rights were not violated, and “in any event, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established law.” [scotusblog

But, there was more.  How about the number of shots fired in the attempt to halt Rickard’s escape?  Were 15 shots unreasonable? The decision thought not:

“We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.” 509 Fed. Appx., at 392.”

There are some problems here.  First, is the Supreme Court really saying that if an officer fires once in the face of a “severe threat to public safety” that all subsequent shots are justified?   The Court did recognize that if initial volleys had incapacitated Rickard, subsequent shots might not be justified.  However, what of Allen, the passenger in the vehicle?

“Allen would be of central concern. But Allen’s presence in the car cannot enhance Rickard’s Fourth Amendment rights. After all, it was Rickard who put Allen in danger by fleeing and refusing to end the chase, and it would be perverse if his disregard for Allen’s safety worked to his benefit.” 

Yes, it would be perverse if Rickard used Allen as something of a hostage.  Yet there is still the unresolved issue of who created that severe threat to public safety?  The police in hot pursuit or Rickard for behaving like a fool? Thus, our second question.

Secondly, what constitutes a “severe threat to public safety?”  Mr. Rickard was stopped for a traffic violation, in his instance a broken headlight.  The initial impression, given the state of the windshield and the dysfunctional headline, lead the officers to believe the car had recently been involved in an accident; Mr. Rickard’s decision to flee the scene and lead the police on a high speed chase didn’t do anything to dissuade the officers that this was the case.  The officers caught up with Mr. Rickard in a parking lot.  Rickard continued his attempt to flee this scene as well, 12 more shots were fired and both individuals in the car were killed. These facts seem to illustrate a tragic process with several moving parts.

Did the reckless high speed chase, in itself, create a severe threat to public safety?  And, does this, in turn hinge on the type of pursuit policy adopted by the police department or law enforcement agency.  There are two forms of pursuit policy – a restrictive policy limits the crimes for which a pursuit may be initiated, and a discretionary policy gives the officers only basic guidance as to when to initiate, conduct, and terminate a pursuit. [PCM

If the Supreme Court is assuming that a discretionary policy is perfectly acceptable, then what does this mean for law enforcement agencies such as Las Vegas, NV which shifted to a restricted policy in the wake of a series of high speed pursuits that ended badly? [LVSun] In fact, Las Vegas Metro went from almost being a poster child for high speed errors to an exemplary  41% reduction in the initiation of high speed pursuits in the three years ending in 2013.  Indeed, the LVMPD was given national recognition for its achievements in improving safe pursuits in October 2013.

Common sense would appear to support the decision of the Las Vegas police to adopt a restricted pursuit policy which lessens the dangers to the suspect, the public, and the police. However, if there is no legal incentive to adopt such a model, then why would ‘unreconstructed’ police departments do so?  And, this of course leads to the unfortunate third question: Did the police create the “severe threat to public safety” when a pursuit was initiated without determining if the pursued was a known felon, or suspected in a felony, or a reasonable conclusion drawn that the pursued must be apprehended immediately?

Some police departments such as the LVMPD have well defined articulated use of force policies (pdf) not that these policies haven’t generated some controversy. [LVRJ 11/29/11]  Others, like the TMCC report dated April 2011 are more general: “… that officers use only the force that reasonably appears necessary to bring an incident under control, while protecting the lives of the officer and others.”  Even this is amended to include a “reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, or to prevent the escape of a fleeing violent felon who the officer believes poses a serious threat of death or serious injury to the officer and others.”  The state of California has 56 pages worth of guidelines for pursuits, crafted in no small amount of detail as of 2006.  The Reno (NV) Police Department summarizes its policy as:

“Officers may pursue a suspect when they reasonably believe the suspect has committed a felony or poses an immediate threat to human life. Unless exigent circumstances exist, officers will normally not pursue a suspect who has committed a misdemeanor crime. Officers must articulate justifiable cause necessitating immediate apprehension of the suspect when pursuing for any offense.”

The Reno policy also incorporates other considerations like traffic conditions, weather, pedestrians in the area, time of day, and the identity of the subject being pursued, among others similar to the California standards.   

If the decision in Plumhoff v. Rickard can be faulted for providing cover for law enforcement officers who may well have contributed to the “severe threat to public safety” in an ill-advised pursuit, and further criticized for justifying all the force necessary until the “threat is over,” then can it also be faulted for allowing police departments to meet the lowest possible standards?

Have Justice Alito and his colleagues sanctified the mediocre or worse, while disparaging the efforts of other jurisdictions to articulate and standardize their use of force and pursuit policies?  If so, then this may well be one of  Justice Alito’s worst decisions. 

[See NYT for more]

Comments Off on Alito’s Worst Decision?

Filed under Politics, public safety

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of ACA: Heller Kicks The Gator Ade Bucket

Senator Dean Heller (R-NV), or as the Fine Wordsmith The Gleaner calls him, “The Senator By Appointment Only,”  wants us all to know that he is not pleased by the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act and Patients’ Bill of Rights.

“Nevada families and businesses are already struggling in this current economic environment, and the President’s job-killing healthcare law is making a difficult situation worse. Congress spent more than a year debating healthcare legislation while Nevadans were losing their jobs and their homes. Obamacare made sweeping changes to Medicare, impacting thousands of Nevada’s seniors, and cut the program by a half trillion dollars.

“This law has now been affirmed as a colossal tax increase on the middle class, and its excessive regulations are stripping businesses of the certainty they need to hire at a time when Nevadans and the rest of the country are desperate for jobs. The President should work with Congress to find real solutions to healthcare reform so the excessive mandates and taxes in this law do not further add to our national debt or continue to stifle economic growth. This onerous law needs to be repealed and replaced with market-based reforms that will provide greater access, affordability, and economic certainty to our nation,” said Senator Dean Heller.

Let us parse:

Heller:Nevada families and businesses are already struggling in this current economic environment, and the President’s job-killing healthcare law is making a difficult situation worse.”

Coupling “job-killing” and “healthcare” is a Republican construction which doesn’t do anything more than seek to associate a change in health care statutes with something (anything) negative.  If unemployment in Nevada were at 2%, and the nation’s major problem was smog, then it would be easy to imagine that the ACA and Patients Bill of Right would be “pollution producing.”  That’s speculative, so let’s drill down a bit further.

Let’s go to that bastion of liberal thinking, Forbes, to see if the ACA/PBR is actually “job killing?”  The answer: No.  In fact, when we go to the Urban Institute’s Study the Massachusetts health care reform enacted under Governor Romney’s administration did NOT produce “job killing” results:

The graphic reduction is difficult to read, so click on the image for the full sized version in the Urban Institute’s original study.  What happens when we take a look at the right hand side of the chart?

While the U.S. was experiencing a decline in full time jobs during the Recession of 3.6%, Massachusetts saw a 2.8% drop.  While the U.S. witnessed a 0.8% increase in part time employment, Massachusetts saw a 0.9% increase.  Whether Governor Romney wants to admit it or not, the Massachusetts plan is the closest statutory comparison to the Affordable Care Act we have, and the numbers about “job losses” in Massachusetts don’t make the Republican point.

Neither do the national numbers: “Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the economy has created 3.5 million private sector jobs, including 488,000 jobs in the health care industry. The unemployment rate is 8.3%, lower than it was in March 2010.”  [Hoyer] And this: “360,000 small businesses have taken advantage of tax credits that are making health insurance more affordable for 2 million workers.  As many as four million small businesses are eligible for these credits.” [Hoyer] And, again, this: “…over 2,800 employers are participating in the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, which is helping provide coverage to 13 million early retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare.”  [Hoyer]   Whether we look at national numbers or state numbers, or both — the health care reforms enacted in Massachusetts and in the United States are NOT job killing.

Heller:Congress spent more than a year debating healthcare legislation while Nevadans were losing their jobs and their homes.”

Yes, many things happened while foreclosure rates in Nevada were leading the nation,  and during this time what was the GOP agenda on financial reform and mortgage relief?

On October 12, 2010 Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) laid out the GOP position on the foreclosure crisis: “Republican leader Eric Cantor chose to break his silence on the foreclosure crisis, with other Republicans quickly picking up the talking points.  And his position should come as no surprise.  Rep. Cantor came to the defense of the housing industry and laid blame squarely on the feet of the American homeowner.” [C2C]

Then, there was the infamous comment from current GOP standard bearer Governor Romney on home foreclosures: “Don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” Romney said when asked what he would do to jump-start the floundering housing market.” [WashMonthly Oct 2011]

Thus, while Congress was debating, the President was signing, and then the Department of Health and Human Services was implementing the provisions of the Affordable Care Act and Patients Bill of Rights, the Republicans were blaming homeowners for the foreclosure debacles and the leader among the GOP presidential candidates was asserting that Nevadans who were in the foreclosure process should close their eyes and Think of the Free Market.  In other words, the Congress could have been debating the desirability of regulating Sea Horse Races, and the GOP wouldn’t have been much interested in legislating solutions to the housing crisis.

Heller:Obamacare made sweeping changes to Medicare, impacting thousands of Nevada’s seniors, and cut the program by a half trillion dollars.”  We won’t go into the part in which the Ryan Budgets in their various incarnations cut massive amounts from Medicare AND sought to turn the program into a voucher/coupon program.  Let’s just deal with the blatantly misleading statement about cuts to Medicare, and see what the professional fact checkers had to say:

“Under the act, Congress voted to reduce $500 billion in projected Medicare spending over the next 10 years, not in one substantial chunk. The reductions are aimed at eliminating parts of the Medicare program seen as ineffective or wasteful. For example, the plan phases out payments to the Medicare Advantage program, an optional program set up under the George W. Bush administration, where seniors could opt to enroll in a private insurance program and the federal government would subsidize a portion of their premium.”  [PolitiFact.com, 5/10/11] (emphasis added)

Under the Affordable Care Act the savings were reinvested in the Medicare program itself, not simply cut from the budget and the program privatized.  And note — some cuts were made to the taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies offering highly profitable optional insurance.  The cuts were in areas considered wasteful, and were NOT related to basic Medicare services.

Heller:This law has now been affirmed as a colossal tax increase on the middle class, and its excessive regulations are stripping businesses of the certainty they need to hire at a time when Nevadans and the rest of the country are desperate for jobs.”   This statement is straight out of the GOP Talking Point Random Generator.

Interesting how Republicans like Senator Heller become really engaged in the problems of the Middle Class when taxes or fees might be increased, but rarely (if ever) when said Middle Class is getting pounded by corporate raiders, union busters, private equity Giant Squids, and stagnating wages.   Be that as it may, if the middle class wants a colossal tax increase — it’s more likely to come from the Republicans.

There is, for example, the tax proposal set forth by Governor Romney, about which the Christian Science Monitor reported:

“In any case, not extending the 2009 tax cuts still in effect in 2012 means that Romney’s plan would, on average, raise taxes for households in the bottom two quintiles, relative to what they’re paying this year.  Mitt Romney’s tax plan would cut taxes, by about $180 billion in 2015 alone, relative to current tax policy. And, despite all arguments to the contrary, a disproportionate share of the savings would go to households with the highest incomes.”  (emphasis added)

Ezra Klein, Washington Post columnist, added this analysis of Governor Romney’s plan:

“Note that the Tax Policy Center could only conduct a partial analysis of Romney’s tax plan. That’s because Romney’s proposal itself is incomplete. He’s said that he wants to scrap various deductions in the tax code, particularly for high earners, in order to broaden the tax base. But he hasn’t offered any details about which deductions he’d scrap or how, so there wasn’t anything for the Tax Policy Center to analyze.

Based on the details Romney has provided so far, his plan would lower tax rates for the top quintile by 5.4 percent, saving the wealthiest an average of $16,134. (The top 1 percent of earners, meanwhile, would save an average of $149,997.) The lowest fifth of earners, by contrast, would see a small tax increase of 1.3 percent under Romney’s plan, owing the federal government an additional $143 extra on average.

Obama’s tax proposal, meanwhile, would keep tax rates roughly the same except for married couples making over $250,000 per year (or single earners making more than $200,000 per year). On average, under Obama’s plan, the top 1 percent would be paying about $87,173 more per year.”

Klein offers the following illustration:

There are many “ifs” involved in the Romney tax proposal, incomplete as it is, but there are some deductions which if eliminated would have a definitely negative impact on middle income level Americans:

“Most middle-class families would get little help. About 18 million working families would actually pay higher taxes because Romney would end the American Opportunity Tax Credit for college and cut tax credits for taxpayers with children and earned income.”  [OCCD]

In fine, if one would like to see a tax structure which bestows the greatest advantages on those who already have great advantages — Governor Romney and the Republicans are your kind of people.

There’s nothing quite like tossing in a phrase like Excessive Regulations to stir the hearts of the financial and insurance sectors, both of whom dislike being told, for example, that using premium payments for CEO compensation and advertising aren’t the best use of consumer dollars.   And, the phrase tickles those who think the EPA is merely a professional thorn in the side of the energy sector — Deep Water Horizon notwithstanding.  It’s often notable that when expounding on the “excessive regulations” in the ACA, very few — if indeed any — examples are offered.

Ah, the now hoary and hirsute talking point “uncertainty and hiring” comes back for yet another encore.   The “uncertainty” allegation is a one size fits all gob-lob at any legislation or legislative proposal which might cause corporations to THINK about what they’re doing.

We’ve been told that implementing the provisions of the Dodd Frank Act on financial regulation reform creates “uncertainty.”  In this instance there’s something to be said for a bit of uncertainty — no bank should believe that it “certainly” has the latitude to use depositors funds to play around in proprietary trades, or has blanket permission to bet against the interests of its own clients, or has leave to arbitrarily play with interest rate reporting because it wants to make its own books look better.

And for the umpteenth time — small business hiring won’t increase until small businesses (not to be confused with Washington, DC lobby shops and hedge funds) see the demand for their goods and services increase such that their current staffing levels are insufficient to meet customer needs.   The only thing that is Certain is that middle class income and middle class jobs need to advance in order to improve aggregate demand.  This has precious little to do with the desires of the Wall Street Wizards to play cowboy with depositors dollars.

Heller:The President should work with Congress to find real solutions to healthcare reform so the excessive mandates and taxes in this law do not further add to our national debt or continue to stifle economic growth.”

Now what could be adding to the national debt?

So, if we are really serious about reducing the federal deficit — then we get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts! And, we do something to get more “growth” into the economy.  Hardly the austerity prescription being touted by Senator Heller and his Republican cohorts.

Heller:This onerous law needs to be repealed and replaced with market-based reforms that will provide greater access, affordability, and economic certainty to our nation,” said Senator Dean Heller.”

Yes, the House will make another symbolic move at “repealing” the Affordable Care Act during the week of July 9th.  Meanwhile, what are “market based reforms?”

Representative Paul Ryan has suggested some “market based” reforms which mean that Medicare recipients will get a “coupon” or voucher toward paying their private health insurance premiums.   This is essentially a government subsidy for health insurance corporations to give them an “incentive” to offer health insurance for the elderly.  Meanwhile back in the real world — the reason we have Medicare in the first place was that insurance corporations do not want to offer plans for elderly people — they get sick, and old, and old and sick.

This might be a good time to remind ourselves that it’s not a “free market” when some corporations are being subsidized by the taxpayers to offer services and products they don’t otherwise want to sell.  For those keeping score, “market based solutions” is GOP-Speak for privatization.

Not to belabor the point much further, but the GOP response to the ACA ruling as evidenced by Senator Heller is simply to offer no solutions to demonstrated problems, and demonstrations about issues of primary interest to the upper 1% of the American income earning public.  It is a tale bedecked with focus group tested buzz words and talking points, which can mean almost anything to their devoted listeners, and almost nothing to anyone seeking solutions to real American problems.

Comments Off on Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of ACA: Heller Kicks The Gator Ade Bucket

Filed under 2012 election, Bush Administration, conservatism, Economy, employment, family issues, Federal budget, financial regulation, Foreclosures, Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Insurance, Medicare, national debt, Nevada politics, Politics, privatization, Republicans, Taxation, unemployment