Tag Archives: north

What These Historical Kings and Marauders Can Teach Our Leaders About Climate Change

Mother Jones

There are no two ways about it: Humankind is, for the first time in our recorded history, living through a massive global climate shift of our own making. Science paints today’s crisis as unprecedented in scope and consequence. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t historical cases of societies that have enjoyed the highs and endured the lows of natural climatic changes—from civilization-busting droughts to empire-building stretches of gorgeous sunshine.

Whether they’re commanding marauding armies or struggling with dramatic temperature shifts, today’s leaders have a variety of historical role models they can learn from:

Should Governor Jerry Brown—confronted by California’s 500-year drought—be mindful of the policy mistakes made by the last Ming Emperor?

Will President Obama learn lessons from Ponhea Yat, the last king of the sacred city of Angkor Wat, when planning how to safeguard America’s critical infrastructure against extreme weather?

Will Vladimir Putin channel his inner Genghis Khan as Russia seeks new territories in the melting Arctic? (He’s already got the horse-riding thing on lock down.)

Here are four historical figures whose triumphs and defeats were related, at least in part, to major changes in their climates.

A new study published this week argues that Genghis Khan, the massively successful Mongol overlord who stitched together the biggest contiguous land empire in world history, may have had a secret weapon: really nice weather.

The paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences presents evidence from tree ring data collected in present-day Mongolia. It shows that when Genghis Khan was building his empire, the usually frigid steppes of central Asia were at their mildest and wettest in more than 1,000 years. This potentially favored “the formation of Mongol political and military power,” the paper says.

The researchers, led by Neil Pederson, a tree-ring scientist at Columbia University, discovered 15 consecutive years of above-average moisture in Mongolia. This was great, politically speaking, for nomad types: “The warm and consistently wet conditions of the early 13th century would have led to high grassland productivity and allowed for increases in domesticated livestock, including horses,” the authors write. If you’ve seen any cheesy historical reenactments of Khan, you’ll know horses were key to expansion, in the same way that icebreakers are becoming all-important in today’s race for shipping routes—and geopolitical influence—in the melting Arctic.

Genghis Khan and his hoard may have had successful romps across the warm climes of Central Asia, but the scientists say the weather was temporary, and their analysis reveals worrying trends for the future. Tree rings show that the early 21st century drought that afflicted Central Asia was the worst in Mongolia in over 1000 years, and made harsher by the higher temperatures consistent with manmade global warming. As temperatures here rise more than the global mean in coming decades, the authors say we could witness repeated instances of mass migration and livestock die-off: “If future warming overwhelms increased precipitation, episodic heat droughts and their social, economic, and political consequences will likely become more common in Mongolia and Inner Asia.”

For three centuries, China’s Ming Dynasty was a superpower that, among other things, invented the bristle-headed toothbrush. But from around 1630, the country was ravaged by a record-breaking drought that was caused by some of the weakest monsoons of the last 2,000 years, which in turn sparked mass civil unrest. Anthropologist Brian Fagan writes in his book, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850, that these events in China were “far more threatening than any contemporary disorders in Europe.” By the time of the fall of the Ming Dynasty in the mid-1600s, Fagan writes, the usually fertile Yangtze Valley had suffered from catastrophic epidemics, floods and famine that drove political discord and left the state vulnerable to attack.

Temperatures were at an all-time low. In China, “it was colder in the mid-seventeenth century than at any other time from 1370 to the present,” writes Emory University historian Tonio Andrade in his 2011 book, Lost Colony. “It was also drier. 1640 was the driest year for north China recorded during the last five centuries.”

The Forbidden City is perhaps the most famous Ming Dynasty structure, and Chongzhen’s final fortress. kallgan/Wikimedia Commons

As Andrade writes, even “the best government would be tried by such conditions.” And Chongzhen’s government was hardly the best. As crop yields collapsed, the response from the emperor’s already fragile regime exacerbated the crisis. Zero tax relief meant starving farmers “now abandoned their land and joined the outlaws,” writes Geoffery Parker in Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century. The hermit-like emperor in Beijing walled himself off in the Forbidden City, the most famous Ming Dynasty symbol of power, distrustful of lawmakers and bureaucrats who were themselves absorbed in bitter factional disputes. (Sound familiar?) Instead of keeping law and order in the provinces, the emperor withdrew his troops to the capital, basically ceding his empire to the disaffected packs of bandits that were growing in number every day; and he shut down one-third of the “courier network” that he relied on for communications, leaving him blind to worsening developments.

​

Click to embiggen: Temperatures during the Ming Dynasty plummeted. Adapted from “Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century,” by Geoffrey Parker.

Meanwhile, the Manchus were ravaging the north, driven by their own drought. It all became too much for Chongzhen. “Under the cumulative pressure of so many catastrophes in so many areas,” writes Parker, “the social fabric of Ming China began to unravel.” Forced to choose between abandoning the north for the southern capital, Nanjing, or standing his ground, “on the morning of 25 April 1644, abandoned by his officials, the last Ming emperor climbed part-way up the hill behind the forbidden city and hanged himself,” writes the University of North Texas’s Harold Miles Tanner in China: A History.

The Manchus eventually sacked Beijing and started the Qing dynasty.

According to author and environmental commentator Fred Pearce, the balmy days of the 10th and 11th century favored the creation of Viking settlements in Greenland under Erik the Red. His son, Leif Erikson was the gallant Viking king credited with the first European discovery of North America, at Newfoundland, in the late 10th century. But the period of great adventure and productivity Erikson initiated in Greenland was soon under threat from increasingly cold weather.

“The settlement on the southern tip of the Arctic island thrived for 400 years, but by the mid-fifteenth century, crops were failing and sea ice cut off any chance of food aid from Europe,” writes Pearce in his book, With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change. It was a failure of adaptation more than anything else, Pearce argues. The Vikings stubbornly continued to farm chickens and grains—warmer weather practices—instead of hunting seals and polar bears, and as a result, “creeping starvation had cut the average height of a Greenland Viking from a sturdy five feet nine inches to a stunted five feet.”

Continue Reading »

See original article here: 

What These Historical Kings and Marauders Can Teach Our Leaders About Climate Change

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What These Historical Kings and Marauders Can Teach Our Leaders About Climate Change

L.A. and California lawmakers move to impose fracking moratoriums

L.A. and California lawmakers move to impose fracking moratoriums

Matt’ Johnson

Leaders in Los Angeles seem to have been paying attention to Hollywood. A little more than a year after the release of Promised Land, a movie about the dangers of fracking starring Matt Damon, members of L.A. City Council are trying to ban hydraulic fracturing.

“Fracking and other unconventional drilling is happening here in Los Angeles, and without the oversight and review to keep our neighborhoods safe,” Councilman Mike Bonin said during a committee hearing on Tuesday. Here’s more from the L.A. Times:

The council is slated to vote Friday to draft new rules that would prohibit hydraulic fracturing and other forms of “well stimulation” in Los Angeles until the council is sure they are safe. …

Several Angelenos complained [during Tuesday’s committee hearing] about vibrations and other problems that they blamed on oil extraction activities at nearby wells.

“Our walls are crumbling,” said Llewyn Fowlkes, part of the Harbor Gateway North Neighborhood Council, which backs a ban. “Our sidewalks are pulling apart and cracking.”

The move coincides with a renewed effort by California lawmakers to impose a moratorium on fracking across the state. A recently introduced bill, SB 1132, would expand the scope of a multi-agency review of the economic, environmental, and public health impacts of fracking — and bar the practice until the study is complete. Some state lawmakers tried to push a fracking moratorium last year, but all they managed to get was weak regulation of the fracking industry.

Environmentalists have been particularly critical of fracking in California recently because the practice uses a lot of water and the state is suffering through a record-breaking drought.

“We are currently allowing fracking operations to expand despite the potential consequences on our water supply, including availability and price of water, the potential for drinking water contamination and the generation of billions of barrels of polluted water,” State Sen. Mark Leno (D), cosponsor of the new bill, told Reuters.


Source
First step toward fracking ban in L.A. taken by land use panel, Los Angeles Times
California’s fracking opponents introduce new moratorium bill, Reuters

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Cities

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Originally from:

L.A. and California lawmakers move to impose fracking moratoriums

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on L.A. and California lawmakers move to impose fracking moratoriums

This Map Is Not the Benghazi Smoking Gun Conservatives Think It Is

Mother Jones

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

Department of the Navy

This map of the location of US Navy ships during the 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch, is the latest purported smoking gun in what Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has called “the worst tragedy since 9/11.” The implication: The White House was in a position to intervene while the attack was ongoing but, for some reason, chose not to. “Map Shows Dozens of U.S. Military Ships Stationed In North Africa Waters During Benghazi Attack,” wrote Katie Pavlich at Town Hall, a headline that was picked up by the esteemed Fox Nation.

But that’s not quite right. Most of the “dozens” of ships were nowhere near Benghazi, and the list includes many vessels that wouldn’t do much good in a rescue situation. For instance, the Lewis and Clark is a cargo vessel, and it was somewhere off the coast of West Africa. The map features eight minesweepers and a tug boat in Bahrain, in the Persian Gulf, a very long way from Benghazi. The Laramie, an oiler, was off the coast of Yemen. Per the Navy, the nearest aircraft carrier was 128 hours away. Only a handful of ships were even in the same body of water as Benghazi, and given the small window in which the attack unfolded, mobilizing a destroyer from the Iranian coastline probably wasn’t going to fix the problem.

Still, with Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state at the time, mulling a presidential bid, expect even more Benghazi “smoking guns” in the years ahead.

Link:

This Map Is Not the Benghazi Smoking Gun Conservatives Think It Is

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Map Is Not the Benghazi Smoking Gun Conservatives Think It Is

The Right to Vote Is Too Important to Be Denied to Ex-Felons

Mother Jones

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

Roger Clegg is seriously unhappy about Eric Holder’s call for the restoration of voting rights to felons who have served their sentences:

He conveniently ignores the reason for felon disenfranchisement, namely that if you aren’t willing to follow the law, then you can hardly claim a role in making the law for everyone else, which is what you do when you vote….The right to vote can be restored, but it should be done carefully, on a case-by-case basis, once a person has shown that he or she has really turned over a new leaf. The high recidivism rates that Mr. Holder acknowledges in his speech just show why that new leaf cannot be presumed simply because someone has walked out of prison; he’ll probably be walking back in, alas. A better approach to the re-integration that Mr. Holder wants is to wait some period of time, review the felon’s record and, if he has shown he is now a positive part of his community, then have a formal ceremony — rather like a naturalization ceremony — in which his rights are restored.

Let’s concede the obvious up front: Released felons are more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans, so there’s an obvious partisan motivation on both sides of this debate.

That said, I favor restoring voting rights to felons, and I’m willing to meet Clegg halfway. I’d be OK with waiting some reasonable period of time1 before restoring voting rights, but I think restoration should be the default after that time has elapsed. That is, after, say, five years, you automatically get your voting rights back unless there’s some specific reason you don’t qualify. And those reasons should be very clear and spelled out via statute.

My position here is based on a simple—perhaps simplistic—view of political freedom. I believe that liberal democracies require three minimum rules of law: free speech, the right to a fair trial, and universal suffrage. At the risk of stating the obvious, this doesn’t mean that nothing else is important.2 But I do mean that if you have these three things, then the odds are very strong that you qualify as a free country. Countries that enforce these rights differ considerably on a wide variety of other metrics and still strike us as mostly free. But I can’t think of a country that fails on any of them that we’d consider mostly free.

In other words, I believe the right to vote is on the same level as free speech and fair trials. And no one suggests that released felons should be denied either of those. In fact, they can’t be, because those rights are enshrined in the Constitution. Voting would be on that list too if it weren’t for an accident of history: namely that we adopted democracy a long time ago, when the mere fact of voting at all was a revolutionary idea, let alone the idea of letting everyone vote. But that accident doesn’t make the right to vote any less important.

A probationary period of some kind is probably reasonable. But once you’re released from prison and you’ve finished your parole, you’re assumed to have paid your debt to society. That means you’re innocent until proven guilty, and competent to protect your political interests in the voting booth unless proven otherwise. No free society should assume anything different.3

1What’s reasonable? Let’s just leave that for another day, OK?

2No, really, I mean that. There’s other important stuff. Honest. But these are the big three. Even freedom of religion can vary a lot within liberal democracies, with a minimum floor set by the fact that most religious expression is protected as free speech. Other important rights—including property rights—can largely be protected as long as majorities can freely express their views and freely elect representatives who agree with them.

3This is doubly true in a country like ours, where incarceration is so rampant and so racially unbalanced.

Taken from: 

The Right to Vote Is Too Important to Be Denied to Ex-Felons

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Right to Vote Is Too Important to Be Denied to Ex-Felons

The Fed Chairman Wore Sensible Shoes Today

Mother Jones

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

Elizabeth Williamson of Real Time Economics, the home for “economic insight and analysis from the Wall Street Journal,” analyzes Janet Yellen’s first appearance before Congress today:

She took her seat at 10:01 a.m., clad in a monochrome suit and sensible shoes, carrying a black vinyl binder with rainbow-colored tabs. Once chided by an uncharitable commentator for wearing the same black dress twice in a row, Ms. Yellen hadn’t bought a new suit for the occasion, her spokeswoman, Michelle Smith, confided to a reporter. “I’ll try to come up with some color for you,” she whispered.

Seriously?

Original article:  

The Fed Chairman Wore Sensible Shoes Today

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Fed Chairman Wore Sensible Shoes Today

Paul Ryan Votes Against the Debt Ceiling Increase

Mother Jones

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

With John Boehner finally crying uncle over the debt ceiling and dumping the whole thing on Democrats, the only suspense left was which members of the Republican leadership would suck it in and vote yes to get the bill over the finish line. Here’s the answer:

Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy voted for the increase. House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, on the other hand, voted against the bill.

There you go. Even Eric Cantor gritted his teeth and voted for the increase, but Paul Ryan didn’t. Kinda makes you think he might still be keeping a presidential run in the back of his mind, doesn’t it?

More: 

Paul Ryan Votes Against the Debt Ceiling Increase

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Paul Ryan Votes Against the Debt Ceiling Increase

Will Democrats Kill the Filibuster Entirely Next Year?

Mother Jones

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

After the 2000 election, with the Senate divided 50-50, Democrats demanded a power-sharing agreement in which both parties would have the same number of committee members and the same budget. Even though Dick Cheney provided the tiebreaking vote in favor of Republican control, Democrats got their way by threatening to filibuster the organization of the Senate.

So what if this happens again after the 2014 election? Joe Biden will provide the tiebreaking vote this time, but Republicans will threaten to filibuster unless they get equal representation. Richard Arenberg thinks this could lead to the end of the filibuster:

Here’s the interesting question. Last November the Democratic majority used the so-called “nuclear option” to eliminate the filibuster for presidential nominations (with the exception of the Supreme Court). This established the principle or at least demonstrated the means by which any rule could be changed at any time by a simple majority. In the wake of a hard-fought election to determine control of the Senate, would the temptation to eliminate the filibuster in order to gain clear control using the simple majority (with the vice president’s vote) be irresistible? Would the Democratic base tolerate any less?

I have long argued that the use of the nuclear option would place the Senate on a slippery slope. I believe that the elimination of the filibuster on legislative matter is close to inevitable.

A tied Senate could be the test.

Maybe! But I’m not sure that either party has much motivation to kill the filibuster entirely at this point, regardless of what their bases demand. Let’s examine the two parties separately.

Democrats: Killing the filibuster for presidential nominees made sense because nominations require only Senate approval. But what’s the value of killing the filibuster for legislation? With the House under Republican control, it wouldn’t do them much good. Nor would it be worth it just to avoid power-sharing during the last two years of Obama’s term, when little is likely to be accomplished anyway. That simply isn’t a big enough deal. And as unlikely as it seems, Democrats do need to be concerned with the possibility of complete Republican control after 2016. It’s a slim possibility, but it’s a possibility. If that happens, why hand over the rope to hang themselves?

Republicans: Suppose Republicans win the Senate outright in 2014. A lot of liberals take it as an article of faith that they’ll immediately kill the filibuster completely. But why? With Obama still in office, it wouldn’t do them any good. And they have to be deeply concerned about complete Democratic control after the 2016 election. It’s not just a slim possibility, it’s a very real possibility. If that happens, why hand over the rope to hang themselves?

Bottom line: There’s nothing new about the procedure Harry Reid used to kill the filibuster for nominations. It’s always been available, and everyone has always known it. But it hasn’t been used before because both parties have always been afraid of what the other party would do in a filibuster-less world. That fear would continue to far outweigh the negligible benefits of killing the filibuster while government remains divided.

But what about after 2016? What if one of the parties wins total control of Congress and the presidency? That’s harder to predict. I still think that fear of what the other party could do without a filibuster runs deep, and may well prevent either party from axing it. But I wouldn’t bet on it. Both Republicans and Democrats will be chomping at the bit to break the grinding deadlock of the post-2010 era, and either party might decide to finally take the plunge.

But if it happens, it will be after 2016. The benefit of killing the filibuster after the 2014 election is just too slim to make it worthwhile.

Source article:  

Will Democrats Kill the Filibuster Entirely Next Year?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will Democrats Kill the Filibuster Entirely Next Year?

Study: Health Care Reform Likely to Reduce Bankruptcy and Catastrophic Debt

Mother Jones

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

Today’s email brings word of an interesting new paper from Bhashkar Mazumder of the Chicago Fed and Sarah Miller of Notre Dame. They set out to measure the effect of the Massachusetts health care reform on bankruptcy and personal debt, a subject that’s topical for a number of reasons:

The Massachusetts plan is quite similar to Obamacare, so results from this study are suggestive of the impact that Obamacare will eventually have.
One of the primary purposes of universal health insurance is to relieve the financial stress of large unpaid medical bills.
Massachusetts is a good case study because its reform affected everyone, not just those below the poverty line.

The authors take advantage of the fact that health care reform had bigger effects on some groups than others. Most middle-aged people, for example, were already insured, so the Massachusetts reform affected them only modestly. Conversely, young people had relatively low insurance rates, so they were more heavily affected. Ditto for counties, some of which had higher initial rates of uninsurance than others.

The study exploits a very large data set of consumer finance based on reporting from credit bureaus, which provided a sample of nearly 400,000 individuals to look at. Its conclusion is unsurprising:

We find that the reform significantly improved credit scores, reduced the total amount past due, reduced the fraction of debt past due, and reduced the probability of personal bankruptcy. We find particularly pronounced reductions in the probability of having a large delinquency of over $5,000. These effects tend to be larger among individuals whose credit scores were low at the time of the reform, suggesting that the greatest gains in financial security occurred among those who were already struggling financially.

The charts below, excerpted from the study, illustrate the effect of health care reform, which was implemented in the period shown by the yellow bars. Despite the severe recession that followed, the amount of current debt stayed pretty flat while the amount of debt more than $10,000 past due declined sharply. Obamacare is not as universal as the Massachusetts reform, so its effects will probably be less pronounced. Nonetheless, it will not only provide routine health care for millions of Americans who aren’t currently getting it, it will also make their lives far less financially precarious. That sounds like a win to me.

More: 

Study: Health Care Reform Likely to Reduce Bankruptcy and Catastrophic Debt

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Study: Health Care Reform Likely to Reduce Bankruptcy and Catastrophic Debt

Here’s How Democrats and Republicans Could End Up Agreeing on a Compromise Replacement for Obamacare

Mother Jones

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

Now that the Coburn-Burr-Hatch health care proposal is on the table, it’s safe to say that the GOP has finally started inching away from its obsession with repealing Obamacare and leaving only a smoking husk in its place. Even if CBH goes nowhere, it’s a sign that at least some Republicans are starting to grapple with the reality that their only option now is to offer up an alternative that’s based on reforming Obamacare, not killing it outright.

So what options are realistically on the table? Andrew Sprung talked with a couple of moderate liberals and one moderate conservative to see how much common ground there might be around a proposal that uses Obamacare as a base but makes substantial changes to it. Here is Yevgeniy Feyman of the Manhattan Institute, our designated conservative:

Feyman enthusiastically embraces CBH as a vehicle for more thoroughgoing reform. Paradoxically, he sees the possibilities for conservative redesign widening, not because supporters of the ACA have been weakened, but because the Tea Party has. The CBH rollout signals that some Republicans at least are ready to deal.

“We’ve seen the hardliners lose a good deal of influence since the shutdown,” Feyman said. “If they don’t gain more seats and influence, I imagine that a bill like this could pass.” Feyman is most excited by the prospect of maintaining subsidies for private insurance but ending the state exchanges’ monopoly of subsidized plans….”In the employer market,” Feyman said, “exchanges are doing a great job directing employees into best locations for care,” providing cost and quality information and incentives to chose the cheapest and best. He would like to see states encourage private exchanges in the individual market, and innovate in other ways, such as providing services that help consumers track their spending or set up HSAs.

The whole piece is longish, but worth a read if you want to dive into the details of possible Obamacare compromises. In my mind, the big question that underlies this is: Why should Democrats even think about making a deal? After all, Obamacare is safe at least through 2016, and almost certainly longer. Even in the unlikely event of a Republican sweep in 2016, they’d still have to deal with two things: Democratic filibusters in the Senate and enormous institutional resistance to changing a program that’s been in place for years. Nobody in the health care industry is going to support big changes after spending half a decade massively modifying their businesses to comply with Obamacare.

The answer, probably, is twofold. First, a compromise would represent a peace of sorts and would truly solidify Obamacare’s survival. Second, Democrats might get some things they want. Donald Taylor, for example, wants to see Obamacare and Medicaid expansion accepted in the South:

For Taylor, a lifelong southerner, the imperative to expand health insurance access in the South is personal….“If I were to argue for negotiation from a pro-ACA perspective,” Taylor said, “I’d be most worried about the uneven rollout, with the South left out. I’d look to come up with some way to make the South willing to expand insurance coverage.”

….”Medicaid expansion is not that consequential in California or Massachusetts where eligibility was already extensive pre-ACA, but in North Carolina, you could cover a half million people in a year, and that’s a huge change. You can leverage $4.1 billion in federal money in 2016 alone. It’s painful to watch that deal go begging.”

I’m not especially optimistic about any of this happening anytime soon. Or even anytime not so soon. On the Republican side there’s just too much tea party energy dedicated to the idea that any compromise is a sellout, and on the Democratic side it’s hard to imagine a compromise deal that would provide enough benefits to make up for Republican demands. But it’s not completely out of the question. If you read Sprung’s piece you’ll know enough to make up your own mind.

Link to article – 

Here’s How Democrats and Republicans Could End Up Agreeing on a Compromise Replacement for Obamacare

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s How Democrats and Republicans Could End Up Agreeing on a Compromise Replacement for Obamacare

In the Republican Party, the Yahoo Wing is Winning

Mother Jones

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

Thanks to massive internal disarray, Republicans are unable to agree on any kind of immigration reform plan. They can’t say that, though, so they’re blaming it on the fact that President Obama is a rogue despot who can’t be trusted to enforce the law no matter what it is. He’ll implement the parts he likes and ignore the rest, just as he’s been doing for years with his sun-king presidency. So no immigration reform.

Also thanks to massive internal disarray, Republicans are unable to agree on a plan to raise the debt limit. Plan A was to demand the end of risk corridors in Obamacare (aka the “insurer bailout”), but that went nowhere. Plan B was to repeal the benefit cut for veterans that was enacted last month, which might have gone somewhere since Democrats are probably willing to go along with that in any case. But that didn’t make the cut either because it would have made it tough for tea partiers to vote against the bill. Plan C is to “wrap several popular, must-pass items around a provision to extend the federal government’s borrowing authority beyond the November midterm elections.” But even this plan is looking shaky.

The common thread here is that the Republican Party is unable to get its act together enough to look beyond next week. Both immigration reform and a quiet debt limit increase would benefit the GOP in the long term. But both would also infuriate the yahoo wing of the party in the short term. So far, the yahoo wing is winning.

Jump to original:  

In the Republican Party, the Yahoo Wing is Winning

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In the Republican Party, the Yahoo Wing is Winning