Tag Archives: economy

Gun Safety, Climate Change Are Top Priorities for Millennials in 2016

A new poll commissioned by USA Today and Rock the Vote has given some insight into millennials top concerns for the 2016 election season. The survey was given to 1,141 young adults aged 18 to 34, and asked participants to identify their political leanings, social and economic policy preferences, and priorities for the country. As it turns out, millennials are less likely than previous generations to be affiliated with a particular political party. Their priorities include climate change action, gun safety laws and the economy (presidential candidates, take note.)

Millennials political leanings

Young Americans are less staunch on partisan issues than their parents or grandparents, and USA Today notes that the under-35 crowd is less ideological than previous generations. Even conservative millennials tend to lean left (42 percent) on social issues, while the majority of young adults (38 percent) identify as economically conservative.

Despite being collectively liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal ones, young adults do seem to havepartisansympathies. Forty-one percent of millennials identify as Democrat, while just 28 percent consider themselves Republican.

Favored presidential candidates

Its no secret that political outliers have shaken things up in the race to the White House, and millennials voting preferences are case in point. The majority of young Democrats are Feeling the Bern for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, while most young Republicans support business mogul Donald Trump.

Top national priorities

So what do millennials want for their country? Overwhelmingly (and across partisan lines), they demand action on gun safety and climate change. About 82 percent of young voters want to enforce mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, and 80 percent would like the country to transition to a green energy landscapeby the year 2030. Other popular issues include requiring police officers to wear body cameras (with 76 percent support), prison sentencing reform for perpetrators of non-violent crimes (68 percent) and pathways to immigration for refugees (53 percent).

Millennials: Less partisan, more demanding of action, less likely to vote

What do the results of the survey tell us about millennial voting patterns? Whether due to more open minds or a lack ofknowledgeonpoliticalideologies, young Americans care less about typical partisan agendas and more about middle-of-the-road policies. They are socially tolerant, yet economically conservativelikely due to the impending threats of student and national debt.

Unfortunately, though, theyre also not very likely to vote. Fifty-five percent of millennials asserted that there are better ways to make a difference than to vote, and as few as four in 10 millennials plan to vote in the presidential primaries. Well have to see how young voters priorities and affiliations will play out in November.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Continue reading: 

Gun Safety, Climate Change Are Top Priorities for Millennials in 2016

Posted in alo, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gun Safety, Climate Change Are Top Priorities for Millennials in 2016

It’s Time to Return to Market-Based Antitrust Law

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Tim Lee makes an interesting argument today. He notes that cell phone plans have gotten a lot better lately:

Next time you go shopping for a new cellphone plan, you’re likely to find that the options are a lot better than they were a couple of years ago. Prices are lower. You don’t have to sign up for one of those annoying two-year contracts. You’ll probably get unlimited phone calls and text messages as a standard feature — and a lot more data than before.

Why has this happened? Because for the past couple of years T-Mobile has been competing ferociously with cheaper, more consumer-friendly plans, and the rest of the industry has had to keep up. But what prompted T-Mobile to become the UnCarrier in the first place?

Back in 2011, AT&T was on the verge of gobbling up T-Mobile, which would have turned the industry’s Big Four into the Big Three and eliminated the industry’s most unpredictable company….But then the Obama administration intervened to block the merger. With a merger off the table, T-Mobile decided to become a thorn in the side of its larger rivals, cutting prices and offering more attractive service plans. The result, says Mark Cooper, a researcher at the Consumer Federation of America, has been an “outbreak of competition” that’s resulted in tens of billions of dollars in consumer savings.

After the AT&T deal fell through, T-Mobile needed a new strategy….So T-Mobile and its new CEO, John Legere, started changing a lot of things. In 2013, the company dropped the much-hated two-year contracts that had become an industry standard. It introduced a new price structure that offered unlimited phone calls and text messages as a standard feature….In 2014, T-Mobile added more goodies, including more generous data caps and unlimited international texting. It boosted its data caps once again in 2015.

Antitrust law in America has been off track for decades, and it’s time to get back on. The government shouldn’t worry about trying to gauge price levels or consumer welfare or benefits to consumers. That’s like trying to centrally control the economy: we don’t know enough to do it well even if we want to. Instead, the feds should concentrate on one simple thing: making sure there’s real competition in every industry. Then let the market figure things out. There are exceptions here and there to this rule, but not many.

Competition is good. Corporations may not like it, and they’ll fight tooth and nail for their rents. But it’s good for everyone else.

Original article: 

It’s Time to Return to Market-Based Antitrust Law

Posted in ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Time to Return to Market-Based Antitrust Law

The Republican Primary Just Got a Little Less Sane

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Elephant: Jeff Cameron Collingwood/Shutterstock; gif by James West/Climate Desk

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham suspended his presidential campaign on Monday. And just like that, the Republican nomination battle got a little less sane when it comes to climate change.

You might be wondering how that’s even possible. After all, the leading Republican candidate—Donald Trump—thinks global warming is a “hoax.” Ted Cruz insists the planet hasn’t warmed in 18 years. Marco Rubio says he doesn’t believe “that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.” Ben Carson argues that there’s “no overwhelming science” that people are altering the climate. And Jeb Bush once described himself as a climate “skeptic.”

Graham had a very different view. “You don’t have to believe that climate change is real,” he said during a GOP debate in October. “I have been to the Antarctic. I have been to Alaska. I am not a scientist, and I’ve got the grades to prove it. But I’ve talked to the climatologists of the world, and 90 percent of them are telling me the greenhouse gas effect is real, that we’re heating up the planet.”

Graham has also worked for actual climate action. He once helped draft a cap-and-trade bill designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions (though he eventually abandoned his own legislation.) More recently, however, Graham opposed President Barack Obama’s signature EPA regulations that limit power plant emissions. And climate action was in no way central to his campaign for the White House. Instead, he focused largely on hawkish foreign policy proposals and on calling Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot.”

Still, Graham has been one of the few Republicans with a national platform to articulate a conservative view on climate change that acknowledges both the scientific realities and the obvious need for action. “I just want a solution that would be good for the economy, that doesn’t destroy it,” he said during that debate.

Graham’s campaign had been struggling to gain traction. He was averaging just 0.5 percent in the polls, according to Real Clear Politics. He never made it onto the main stage of a GOP debate, and he was even excluded from one of the undercard debates. Now, Graham’s few supporters will have to find a new candidate. If they are looking for someone who has a reasonable position on the climate issue, their choices will be pretty limited. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and businesswoman Carly Fiorina all seem to accept the science these days, but they don’t want to do much about the problem.

That leaves former New York Gov. George Pataki, who spearheaded the creation of a regional cap-and-trade system and has blasted the climate change denial that dominates his party. He’s currently polling at 0.2 percent.

Read more:  

The Republican Primary Just Got a Little Less Sane

Posted in Anchor, bigo, FF, GE, green energy, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Republican Primary Just Got a Little Less Sane

Congress to Americans: You Get a Tax Break! And You Get a Tax Break!

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Senate on Friday passed a massive $1.8 trillion spending and tax bill, including a mess of tax breaks expected to cost the government $680 billion over the next decade. The beneficiaries range from low-income workers to giant corporations, and even include the all-important horse racing and motorsports industries. The measures, which passed the House on Thursday, are now headed to the desk of President Barack Obama.

Both parties came away from the frantic negotiations claiming some victories. Democrats managed to make permanent a series of anti-poverty tax breaks, including an expansion of the child tax credit—which will keep the threshold above which a percentage of a parent’s income can be deducted to defray childcare costs at $3,000, rather than allowing it to rise to $10,000—and the earned income tax credit. “These improvements lift about 16 million people, including about 8 million children, out of poverty or closer to the poverty line each year,” Robert Greenstein, president of the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said of the measures.

Two other newly permanent tax breaks are the research and experimentation credit—which allows companies to deduct R&D costs—and a tax deduction allowing small businesses to write off up to $500,000 for the purchase of heavy machinery or office equipment. These proposals found support on both sides of the aisle. Republicans, meanwhile, managed to extend or make permanent deductions that will largely benefit large corporations, including one that expands the category of foreign income that is not taxed and another allowing businesses to write off investment costs up front.

The tax bill may raise some problems for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Obama’s landmark health coverage bill. It delays the unpopular “Cadillac tax”—a tax on expensive employer-provided health plans—as well as taxes on medical devices and health insurance. Altogether, these cuts will cost the healthcare program more than $30 billion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a bipartisan fiscal policy education organization, making Obamacare just that much more expensive for the government over the coming years.

According to CRFB, the tax deal will cost the government a whopping $680 billion over the next decade—after interest, about $830 billion. With no new revenue sources, the expense will just be tacked onto the yawning US deficit. “The failure to pay for this legislation is completely at odds with rhetoric about fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets,” CRFB president Maya MacGuineas said.

Continue reading:

Congress to Americans: You Get a Tax Break! And You Get a Tax Break!

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Congress to Americans: You Get a Tax Break! And You Get a Tax Break!

How the Fed Raising Rates Will Affect You—And Everyone Else

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday raised its benchmark interest rate for the first time in nearly a decade. Citing rising employment and economic activity, the central bank’s Federal Open Market Committee voted to raise its target for the federal funds rate (the rate that banks pay to loan each other money overnight) to between 0.25 and 0.5 percent. Interest rates across the economy are expected to climb along with it.

This may not sound significant, but the Fed’s interest rate decisions have a huge impact on the American and global economies. The rate is one of the main mechanisms that the Federal Reserve uses to cool the economy and quell inflation. The last time the Fed raised it was in 2006. Then came the housing market crash, the Great Recession, and the Fed’s unprecedented response: nine years of near-zero rates aimed at spurring economic growth.

A growing contingent of influential economists believe that it is too soon to take moves that will slow economic growth, arguing that raising rates now will do the most damage to those who can least afford it: the poor and minorities. They say the Fed should only step in when there are clear signs of rising inflation, the traditional trigger for tightening monetary policy, which hasn’t happened yet.

The decade of near-zero interest rates have brought the economy into such unfamiliar territory, however, that other economists say we can’t predict the consequences of this move by the Fed. “The environment we’re in is just so out of the range of our models that we are a bit in the dark,” says Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

The one point everybody agrees on is that while the impact of this first hike may be minor, Yellen has indicated that more may follow and those will shift gears in the American economy. Everyone will be affected, with some clear winners and losers.

The big winners are likely to include:

The financial sector: Big banks and financial institutions have already seen a bump from the anticipated rate hike. Banks typically benefit from rising rates, because that means they are able to lend at higher long-term interest rates while borrowing at lower short-term ones. The financial sector also benefits from hard-on-inflation policies, since high inflation erodes the value of their investments. “Unexpected increases in inflation are wealth transfers from creditors to debtors,” explains Josh Bivens, research and policy director at the progressive Economic Policy Institute. “The finance sector really, really dislikes unexpected inflation.”

People with savings in the bank: Ralph Nader recently published a condescending letter that he wrote Yellen, urging her to raise rates for the sake of “the savers of America.” (Yellen responded with her own letter defending the Fed’s policies). Nader was onto something though: An extended period of low rates hits hardest ordinary people who keep their savings in bank accounts. With interest rates near zero, their savings stagnate. But there’s a twist. The very poor are generally unable to save much, which means that they don’t have much to lose. People with significant savings tend to put their money in the stock market, which has soared over the past few years.

“If you’re talking about people that have any significant savings at all—more than $5,000 or $10,000—they’re not keeping it in a checking account, they’re doing things like putting it in stock and bonds. And the price of stocks and bonds have actually been driven higher by the Fed’s policies,” says Bivens.

Small businesses (maybe): This seems counterintuitive. After all, “cheap money,” or low interest rates, are supposed to benefit borrowers. But since the financial crisis, big banks have all but cut off lending to small businesses. The lack of bank loans has pushed small business owners into the open arms of non-bank lenders, who charge far higher rates. (The Wall Street Journal cites a lender that charges 39 percent, as opposed to the 5 percent to 6 percent a bank would charge.) Some commentators have pointed out that higher rates could encourage banks to loosen their purse strings.

But at the same time, small businesses will be among the first to suffer if domestic demand drops—and some are worried that this could happen with higher interest rates. The Fed is betting that the economy is strong enough, but only time will tell.

The economy as a whole (maybe): The big question mark is whether so-called bubbles are already forming in some areas of the economy. There is no agreement on this point, but cheap debt historically encourages a rapid rise in prices in certain sectors followed by a sudden drop, which is what happened when the bubble “burst” in the housing market during the Great Recession. Some economists are worried that we could make the same mistake again. Calabria from the Cato Institute, explains that even though he has been arguing in favor of a rate hike for several years, he is concerned about this rate hike and the implications for “financial stability.” The discussions about it remind him of those from 2003 and 2004, before the last crisis. Some economists see a bubble growing in the housing market, while others, including former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, have sounded alarms about a potential bubble in the bond market.

The losers include:

Low-wage workers and the unemployed: Many pro-rate hike economists point to the unemployment rate as a reason to support the Fed’s move. The economy has been steadily adding jobs in recent months—including 211,000 in November—and unemployment, now at 5 percent, has returned to pre-recession levels. The point of low rates is to create jobs, so with unemployment down, some say the Fed has already done its job.

But although unemployment has dropped, underemployment—or the rate of people working in jobs that don’t match their skill level or working part time when they would prefer to work full time—is still high at 9.9 percent, according to Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden. What’s more, wages are rising well below target levels.

Some economists argue that it’s worth keeping rates low until their benefits spread to a greater number of low-income workers. “If this hike sets off a too-steep series of interest rate increases, I think the big losers are the literally couple of a million Americans who would not have jobs 12 to 18 months from now…and really tens of millions of Americans who will have slower wage growth over that time if we restrict economic growth too much,” says Bivens. Another argument for keeping rates low is that high employment disproportionately benefits black workers, who have been hit the hardest by the past two recessions.

Emerging markets: Developing economies such as Russia, Turkey, and Brazil may also take a hit from the rate hike. By attracting investors to the United States with higher returns, the Fed’s rate hike is expected to strengthen the dollar relative to other world currencies. For the many companies in emerging markets who have taken out dollar-denominated debt, this could be a major problem; they will have to pay more on their loans even as their own countries’ currencies remain weak. International investors are already expected to pull more than $500 billion out of emerging markets this year, making 2015 the first year in nearly three decades that more money has left emerging markets than entered them.

Exporters: The United States is tightening monetary policy just as the European Union, Japan and China move in the opposite direction, which will make the dollar even more attractive to foreign investors. A stronger dollar would push up the price of US exports, leaving some American companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Taxpayers: Finally, raising rates will push up one cost we all share—the cost of servicing government debt. Borrowing costs will rise along with interest rates, which will make it just that much harder for the government to close its deficit.

Originally posted here:  

How the Fed Raising Rates Will Affect You—And Everyone Else

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Fed Raising Rates Will Affect You—And Everyone Else

Are We Reaching Peak CO2?

green4us

Maybe! Emission of CO2 from coal burning and cement manufacturing, the two biggest humanmade sources. The trend has slowed recently and actually reversed in 2015.Graph by Jackson, et al., modified (red rectangle added) by Phil Plait Our planet is heating up. The cause is in some ways simple: Humans add a lot of carbon dioxide to the air every year, about 40 billion tons of it. CO2 is a greenhouse gas: It lets sunlight through to heat the ground, but the infrared light the ground emits gets absorbed, and cannot escape to space. That warms us up, slowly but inevitably. By every measure available to us, we see the effects of this increased heat. But there’s hope, at least a hint of it. A new study has some hopeful news about global warming: The global emission of carbon dioxide slowed substantially in 2014, and is projected to drop a little bit in 2015. This comes after over a decade of quite sharp growth in emission. Better yet: This happened while the global economy underwent “robust growth,” and it happened in part due to switching to renewables (solar and wind power) as well as a drop in coal use. Globally, over the past 15 years, we’ve been dumping roughly an extra billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, jumping from 25 billion tons per year to over 37. But the rate has slowed in the past couple of years; in 2014 the growth slowed dramatically, and according to the new research the rate is projected to drop in 2015 by roughly 0.6 percent, from 35.9 billion tons to 35.7. Read the rest at Slate.

Read More: 

Are We Reaching Peak CO2?

Related Posts

Forget the Oil Industry’s Methane. Obama Should Crack Down on Cows Instead.
Some Climate Engineering Ideas Are Insane. This One Isn’t.
Was 2014 Really the Warmest Year? Here’s Why It Doesn’t Matter.
Care about global climate change? Then fight local air pollution
Can a Carbon Tax Work Without Hurting the Economy? Ask British Columbia
2014 Was the Year We Finally Started to Do Something About Climate Change

Share this:






View this article: 

Are We Reaching Peak CO2?

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are We Reaching Peak CO2?

How Good a Dealmaker Is Donald Trump, Anyway?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here is Donald Trump on who he listens to regarding economic issues:

Honestly, I feel that I have such a vast feeling for it that I really—you know, Milton Friedman was good—but I don’t really listen to anybody. I just put it in and I have a feeling for, it’s almost common sense, it’s a business instinct.

Translation: Milton Friedman is the only conservative economist he can think of. And he probably wouldn’t listen to the guy if he were still alive anyway. Why mess with his killer instincts?

Which raises two questions. First: How good a developer is Donald Trump? Seriously. My sense is that he’s about a 5 on a scale of 1-10. He’s had some successes, he’s had some failures, and he seems to have found a decent—but hardly dazzling—niche in golf resorts. Overall, he started with a lot of money and has since grown his business at roughly the rate of the economy. Not bad, but nothing to crow about.

And second: why is it that we seem to have heard nothing about Trump from other developers? They’d have the best read on how good he really is, after all. If he were truly brilliant, I figure he would have been soliciting testimonials all over the place. I haven’t seen any. But if he’s a second-rater with a big mouth, I figure we would have heard that too. But I haven’t. I haven’t really heard anything. Do developers not like to talk smack about each other because they never know where their next deal might come from? Do they just generally shun publicity? Do they genuinely not know much about Trump because he doesn’t really do much business these days aside from golf courses, branding deals, and TV shows?

What’s the deal here? Trump must have a reputation within the New York developer community. So what is it?

Source: 

How Good a Dealmaker Is Donald Trump, Anyway?

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Good a Dealmaker Is Donald Trump, Anyway?

The Press Needs to Fight Back on Republican Tax Lunacy

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Steve Benen on the Rubio-Lee tax plan:

At first blush, it’s tempting to see Marco Rubio’s economic plan as a dog-bites-man story: Republican presidential campaign proposes massive tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, even while saying the opposite.

Benen goes on to manfully make the case that Rubio’s tax crankery actually does deserve extra special attention, but I’m not sure he does the job. Sure, Rubio’s deficit would be humongous, but so would everyone else’s. And Rubio has a helluva mountain to climb to take the top spot in the tax craziness derby. Let’s roll the tape:

The “sensible” candidate says his tax plan will boost growth to 4 percent a year. His advisors have basically admitted that this number was pulled out of thin air.
A second candidate, not to be outdone on the absurd growth front, says his plan will cause the economy to take off like a rocket, producing growth as high as 6 percent. How will he manage this? “I just will.”
Another candidate suggests we adopt a tax plan based on the Biblical practice of tithing.
Yet another candidate, apparently thinking that tithing isn’t quite crazy enough, proposes an even lower flat tax.

This is all fantasyland stuff. So why doesn’t the media hammer them more on it? Why do debate moderators let them get away with such lunacy? Good question. John Harwood tried the only honest approach in the last debate, suggesting that Donald Trump was running a “comic book” campaign—and it was Harwood who got hammered. Harwood gamely tried a second time with Trump, telling him that “you have as chance of cutting taxes that much without increasing the deficit as you would of flying away from that podium by flapping your arms.” Trump brushed him off. Harwood tried yet again with Rubio, this time citing numbers from the Tax Foundation, and Rubio brushed him off. That’s a couple of tries at mockery and one try at arithmetic, and they both had the same effect.

There’s not much left to do. If candidates want to say that brass is gold, and people choose to believe them despite piles of evidence to the contrary, you’re stuck. Eventually you feel like you have to move on to something else.

But maybe you don’t. Maybe you just keep asking, over and over. Maybe you ask every candidate the same question. Republicans will scream about how the liberal media hates them, and then they’ll trot out their pet economists to insist that tax cuts really do hypercharge the economy. The moderators will take a lot of heat over this. But it might actually turn supply-side nuttiness into a real topic that gets its 15 minutes of fame. That’s better than nothing.

Taken from – 

The Press Needs to Fight Back on Republican Tax Lunacy

Posted in Anker, Bunn, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Press Needs to Fight Back on Republican Tax Lunacy

Elizabeth Warren Wants to Give Seniors a Raise

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Elizabeth Warren wants to give seniors the same pay raise enjoyed by CEOs—and to raise taxes on some executive pay in the process. The liberal senator from Massachusetts is introducing a bill on Thursday to boost Social Security payments for 2016 with a one-time bump in benefits.

Social Security payments—for both retirees and people receiving disability insurance—are pegged to inflation, with the government calculating a cost-of-living adjustment, the percentage by which payments increase each year. But in recent years, with the economy still puttering only slowly upward following the recession, inflation has stalled, which has left Social Security recipients with no or minimal annual increases. 2016 is set to be only the third year since 1975 when Social Security won’t get any cost-of-living increase, joining 2010 and 2011.

Warren’s bill, dubbed the SAVE Act (short for Seniors and Veterans Emergency Benefits Act), would offer a one-time 3.9 percent increase. Why such a specific percentage? Warren points to a study showing that pay for CEOs at the 350 largest companies increased by 3.9 percent in 2015. Warren’s bill would pay for this one-time benefit hike by eliminating a corporate tax exemption for performance pay packages—which would also extend the solvency of the entire Social Security program.

As Mother Jones‘s Pema Levy documented earlier this year, Warren has focused on Social Security since coming to the Senate—not just defending the current program against cuts, but fighting to expand benefits. Her proposal comes at a time when much of the political debate over entitlements has pulled in the opposite direction. New House Speaker Paul Ryan, whose earlier proposals would have privatized parts of Social Security, is promising to explore changes to entitlements, and the Republican presidential candidates have debated lowering Social Security benefits. But Warren may be rallying Democrats to her side. Earlier this year, during votes on amendments to a budget, Warren introduced legislation to expand benefits that failed to pass but won the backing of all but two Democratic senators.

Visit link:

Elizabeth Warren Wants to Give Seniors a Raise

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Elizabeth Warren Wants to Give Seniors a Raise

A Few Unanswered Questions From Last Night’s Debate

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

After reviewing the transcript of last night’s debate I realized I had a few leftover questions. Nothing hard. Just some simple, easy-peasy stuff:

Carly Fiorina: You say you want to reduce the tax code to three pages using normal 11-point type. I’m tired of paying our CPA every year to prepare our tax returns, so this sounds terrific. It also sounds short enough that you can produce draft legislation for us pretty quickly. How hard can three pages be? When do we get to see it?

Mike Huckabee: You say we can save Medicare by focusing on cures for four big diseases that apparently we’ve been ignoring: cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and heart disease. Since I happen to have bone cancer, this sounds like a great idea to me. In fact, I’d be OK with pauperizing the whole country in order to speed up cures for multiple myeloma. So what’s the plan? I checked out your website, but the only mention of cancer I could find was a blog post comparing Iran to cancer. This makes me concerned about how serious you are. Do you have some ideas about research priorities? How much money will you spend on this? Inquiring minds want to know.

Donald Trump: Some of your luxury resorts have policies that ban guests from carrying guns. You said you’d change this, and since you’re the boss I assume you can do it with the stroke of a pen. When are you going to do this?

Marco Rubio: You might have been confused about John Harwood’s tax question last night. I think he agrees that your tax plan is generous to the very poor. But now that we have that straight, why does your plan increase middle-class income by only 15 percent compared to 28 percent for the top earners? As he said, that really does seem kind of backward for a guy who’s so dedicated to average workers like your parents.

Ben Carson: Last night you said that our economy is doing poorly because it’s “tethered down right now with so many regulations.” But then you failed to make the obvious blimp joke. What’s up with that?

Ted Cruz: Carl Quintanilla rudely refused to let you talk about the debt ceiling even though that was what he asked you about. But it sure seemed like you had something you wanted to get off your chest about that. So: what do you think about the debt ceiling? And one other thing: are you serious about returning to the gold standard? Really?

Source: 

A Few Unanswered Questions From Last Night’s Debate

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Few Unanswered Questions From Last Night’s Debate