Search This Blog

Thursday, October 31, 2013

News and Facebook

The Pew Research Center reports:
On Facebook, the largest social media platform, news is a common but incidental experience, according to an initiative of Pew Research Center in collaboration with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Overall, about half of adult Facebook users, 47%, “ever” get news there. That amounts to 30% of the population.
Most U.S. adults do not go to Facebook seeking news out, the nationally representative online survey of 5,173 adults finds. Instead, the vast majority of Facebook news consumers, 78%, get news when they are on Facebook for other reasons. And just 4% say it is the most important way they get news. As one respondent summed it up, “I believe Facebook is a good way to find out news without actually looking for it.”
However, the survey provides evidence that Facebook exposes some people to news who otherwise might not get it. While only 38% of heavy news followers who get news on Facebook say the site is an important way they get news, that figure rises to 47% among those who follow the news less often. “If it wasn’t for Facebook news,” wrote one respondent, “I’d probably never really know what’s going on in the world because I don’t have time to keep up with the news on a bunch of different locations.”
In particular, younger adults, who as a group are less engaged than their elders are with news on other platforms, are as engaged, if not more so, with news on Facebook. Young people (18- to 29– year-olds) account for about a third, 34%, of Facebook news consumers. That far outpaces the 20% that they account for among Facebook users who do not get news on the site.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

IRS and Obamacare Penalties

Our chapter on bureaucracy notes that tax law is often a means to do things other than raise revenue. USA Today reports:
The IRS, which is in charge of enforcing compliance with the new insurance requirement, is accustomed to carrying big sticks. The first step it usually takes against tax scofflaws is to file public liens against them. Such a lien means the IRS has first dibs on any money you acquire, [legal scholar Andy] Grewal said.
"It puts a cloud over all your assets," he said. "If there's a public record that the IRS is after you, no one's going to lend you money."

That means no mortgage, no car loan, no credit cards — until you settle up with Uncle Sam.

Grewal said liens are usually enough to bring tax deadbeats to heel. If not, the IRS can seize assets, including your car or your house. And in extreme cases, if you willfully refuse to pay taxes, authorities can charge you criminally, put you on trial and send you to prison.

But when it passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, Congress banned the IRS from using any of its usual techniques to force people to pay the penalty for failing to obtain health insurance.

Alice Helle, a Des Moines lawyer who has been working on Affordable Care Act issues, speculated that members of Congress had political motives for disarming the IRS on this issue.

"I think they thought, 'We're not going to throw people in jail or put a lien on their house for not having coverage,'" she said.

Helle doubts many Americans will decide to demonstrate displeasure with the Affordable Care Act by purposely refusing to have health insurance and then daring the IRS to try to punish them.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

"You Can Keep It"

In 2009, White House aide Linda Douglass made a remarkable video dismissing the idea that the health care law could force people off of their current insurance policies.


She accused the plan's critics of "disinformation" and cited the president's promises:
Now, for example, here is a clip that they probably won't show you.

THE PRESIDENT: Here is a guarantee that I've made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor. Nobody is trying to change what works in the system. We are trying to change what doesn't work in the system.

LINDA DOUGLASS: And here's another one.

THE PRESIDENT: The public plan I think is an important tool to discipline insurance companies. What we've said is, under our proposal, let's have a system the same way that federal employees do, the same way that members of Congress do where we call it an exchange, but you can call it the marketplace, where essentially you've got a whole bunch of different plans. If you like your plan, and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing, you keep your plan, you keep your doctor. If your employer is providing you good health insurance, terrific, we're not going to mess with it.
CBS reports:
But people across the country are finding out they're losing their existing insurance plans under Obamacare because requirements in the law, such as prenatal and prescription drug coverage, mean their old plans aren't comprehensive enough.
In California, Kaiser Permanente terminated policies for 160,000 people. In Florida, at least 300,000 people are losing coverage.
NBC reports:
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
As of this morning, however, the White House website was still making the same claim:




Monday, October 28, 2013

Privacy, Student Aid, and Data Mining

Many posts have discussed privacy issues. The US Education Department's Free Application for Federal Student Aid is an example:  it purportedly helps students, but it is actually hurting some.  Inside Higher Ed reports:
When would-be college students apply for financial aid using the FAFSA, they are asked to list the colleges they are thinking about attending. The online version of the form asks applicants to submit up to 10 college names. The U.S. Department of Education then shares all the information on the FAFSA with all of the colleges on the list, as well as state agencies involved in awarding student aid. The form notes that the information could be used by state agencies, but there is no mention that individual colleges will use the information in admissions or financial aid -- and there is no indication that students could be punished by colleges for where they appear on the list.

But the list has turned out to be very valuable to college admissions offices and private enrollment management consultants: They have discovered that the order in which students list institutions corresponds to students’ preferred college.

Now, some colleges use this “FAFSA position” to deny students admission, said David Hawkins, director of public policy and research for the National Association for College Admission Counseling.

So the institution is disinclined to use up a precious admissions slot for a student who is unlikely to enroll.
... 
Besides turning away students who put their institution further down the list, some college officials may also be offering smaller aid packages to students who list their institution highly, according to several prominent higher education consultants who advise institutions across the country on enrollment practices.

This could be happening because students are more likely to pay whatever it takes to attend the college of their choice... The use of the list on the FAFSA is just another example of how colleges are using increasingly sophisticated data mining techniques to recruit and shape their classes.
...

While ACT and College Board have long earned a lot of money by selling students' names, it’s not clear why the federal government is revealing information to colleges that could be used against students. Some outsiders suggested the Department of Education’s current practice is easier on the department -- otherwise, it would have to find a way to scrub each and every one of the FAFSAs of the names of other institutions.
The practice also raises questions of inequality, since it does not affect affluent students who forgo applying for student aid.

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Affordable Care Act: Winners and Losers

The Los Angeles Times reports:
Although recent criticism of the healthcare law has focused on website glitches and early enrollment snags, experts say sharp price increases for individual policies have the greatest potential to erode public support for President Obama's signature legislation.
"This is when the actual sticker shock comes into play for people," said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. "There are winners and losers under the Affordable Care Act."
Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.
Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don't qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.
"It doesn't seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else," said Harris, who is three months pregnant. "This increase is simply not affordable."
... 
Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.
"She said, 'I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'" Kehaly said.

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Waning Support for Gun Control

Nearly a year after the Newtown, Conn., school shootings spawned considerable U.S. debate about passing stricter gun control laws, almost half of Americans believe the laws covering the sale of firearms should be strengthened and half say they should stay the same or be less strict.

Public support for stricter gun laws is down from 58% in the days after the December 2012 Newtown shootings, and is lower than it was from 2000 through 2006, when, for the most part, solid majorities of Americans favored such laws. However, it remains slightly higher than from 2009 to 2011, when support for stricter laws fell to record lows of 44% and 43%.

...
The new poll also finds public opposition to banning handgun ownership holding at a record-high 74%, identical to a year ago. One in four Americans think the law should limit possession to police and other authorized persons.

Recent attitudes on this are markedly different from the 1980s, when barely half of Americans opposed a ban on civilian handgun ownership. It is also a major turnaround from a half century ago, when only 36% opposed such a ban. Opposition to banning citizens' possession of handguns mounted in the 1990s and 2000s, and first crossed the 70% threshold in 2009.

Health Care Difficulties

The Obama administration has promised that it will fix healthcare.gov by November 30. The New York Times reports on a problem:
Such a condensed time frame raises the question of how hundreds of thousands of people whose current policies do not comply with the health law will obtain new coverage in time, and how millions who may qualify for subsidies will enroll. Some experts predicted a groundswell of demands from Congress and elsewhere to delay the deadlines.
... 
In recent weeks, insurance companies have notified hundreds of thousands of people around the country that their current coverage will end on Dec. 31 because it does not comply with the Affordable Care Act. For example, the policies may not provide “essential health benefits” like maternity care and may not cover as much of the medical costs as required by new federal standards.

In a typical letter, about 25,000 policyholders of Independence Blue Cross in Pennsylvania were informed, “As a result of the health care law, your current health plan will be discontinued effective December 31, 2013.”

Consumers living in Washington, D.C., were informed by CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield that “your current plan will cease to exist” on Jan. 1 because it does not conform to the new federal mandates.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida said it was informing about 300,000 subscribers that their insurance policies did not meet the new requirements.
CBS reports:
The disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov may have another serious problem: A CBS News analysis shows that in many of the 15 state-based health insurance exchanges more people are enrolling in Medicaid rather than buying private health insurance. And if that trend continues, there's concern there won't be enough healthy people buying health insurance for the system to work.

As the Obamacare website struggles, the administration is emphasizing state-level success. President Obama said Monday, "There's great demand at the state level as well. Because there are a bunch of states running their own marketplaces."

But left unsaid in the president's remarks: the newly insured in some of those states are overwhelmingly low-income people signing up for Medicaid at no cost to them.

...
CBS News has confirmed that in Washington, of the more than 35,000 people newly enrolled, 87 percent signed up for Medicaid. In Kentucky, out of 26,000 new enrollments, 82 percent are in Medicaid. And in New York, of 37,000 enrollments, Medicaid accounts for 64 percent. And there are similar stories across the country in nearly half of the states that run their own exchanges.

Friday, October 25, 2013

American Gloom

Gallup reports:
Fewer Americans believe there is "plenty of opportunity" to get ahead in America today than have said so across three previous measurement points over the last 59 years. A bare majority (52%) say the country has plenty of economic opportunity, down from 57% in 2011 and more substantially from 81% in 1998.

These results come from a Sept. 25-Oct. 2 poll that updated several long-standing trends relating to Americans' views of economic opportunity.
...
Obama has also spoken frequently about the need for a "fairer" society -- one in which the prospect of social mobility and the ability of all groups in society to get ahead is spread equally. American attitudes about this aspect of U.S. society have changed significantly over the past decade and a half. Today, just half say "the economic system in the United States is basically fair, since all Americans have an equal opportunity to succeed," while 44% instead see it as basically unfair, and lacking such opportunity. This is a significant change of attitudes compared with the economically heady and dot-com boom year of 1998, when nearly seven in 10 Americans saw the economic system as fair.
AP reports:
U.S. consumer confidence fell in October as concern grew that the partial government shutdown and political fight over the nation's borrowing limit would slow growth.

The University of Michigan says its index of consumer sentiment fell to 73.2 from 77.5 in September. The index has fallen for three straight months after reaching a six-year high of 85.1 in July.

A measure of Americans' expectations for future growth fell to its lowest level since late 2011, pulling down the overall index.

"Consumers have increasingly moved toward the view that the government has become the primary obstacle to more robust economic growth," the survey said.

Americans made more negative references to the federal government this month than at any time in the roughly 50-year history of the survey.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Mounting Problems with the Affordable Care Act

At The Hill, Elise Viebeck reports:
The error-filled rollout of ObamaCare’s enrollment site appears to have put the administration well behind its initial estimate of registering half a million people in the new exchanges this month.
Experts also expect that many of the people who are enrolling are old and sick, and not the younger, healthier uninsured people needed to make the system work.
Figuring out precisely how many people have enrolled is impossible because the administration has refused to provide any details, but it is clear that only a handful of the 20 million people the White House has reported have visited HealthCare.gov have enrolled in ObamaCare.
An administration official confirmed that 476,000 applications had been filed as of last weekend, a step that precedes signing up for coverage. At least half of these were from the 36 federally facilitated exchanges that have been plagued with problems.
A good number of those 476,000 people, however, could be trying to sign up for the healthcare law’s expansion of Medicaid, and not ObamaCare.
The consulting firm Kantar US Insights estimated that only about 36,000 people, less than 1 percent of the site’s visitors, completed the ObamaCare enrollment process by Oct. 5.
The New York Times reports:
Of the roughly 2,500 counties served by the federal exchanges, more than half, or 58 percent, have plans offered by just one or two insurance carriers, according to an analysis by The Times of county-level data provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. In about 530 counties, only a single insurer is participating.
The analysis suggests that the ambitions of the Affordable Care Act to increase competition have unfolded unevenly, at least in the early going, and have not addressed many of the factors that contribute to high prices. Insurance companies are reluctant to enter challenging new markets, experts say, because medical costs are high, dominant insurers are difficult to unseat, and powerful hospital systems resist efforts to lower rates.
“There’s nothing in the structure of the Affordable Care Act which really deals with that problem,” said John Holahan, a fellow at the Urban Institute, who noted that many factors determine costs in a given market. “I think that all else being equal, premiums will clearly be higher when there’s not that competition.”

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Terror and Denaturalization

Our chapter on citizenship discusses denaturalization, the process by which the government can strip citizenship from people who obtained it through fraud or illegality.  NBC 5 in Chicago reports:
A suburban Evergreen Park woman faces possible deportation and prison time after federal officials say she lied about her terrorist past.
Rasmieh Odeh, 66, works as a social worker for the Arab American Action Network where she helps people become citizens and helps to empower women through her work with domestic-violence groups.
"All she has done is dedicate her life to racial and social justice, that's the Rasmieh Odeh I know, and that's the Rasmieh Odeh who's under attack her," Hatem Abuddayyeh said outside a Chicago federal courtroom where Odeh appeared Tuesday.
But federal investigators say in 1969 she was convicted in Israel of participating in the terrorist bombings of a supermarket and the British consulate. Only one bomb — one of two placed at the supermarket — exploded, killing the two people and wounding several others. Israeli authorities have said the attacks were planned by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
An Israeli military court sentenced Odeh to life in prison in 1970, but she was released 10 years later in a prisoner exchange with the Popular Front. Israel released 76 prisoners in exchange for an Israeli soldier captured in Lebanon, according to Odeh's indictment.
But officials say she neglected to tell U.S. officials about her past when she moved to this country from Jordan and eventually became a citizen.
Odeh faces up to 10 years in federal prison if convicted, deportation back to Jordan and the removal of her U.S. citizenship.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

The Geography of Inequality

A previous post looked at the relationship of geography and inequality. At New Geography, Richard Morrill writes (h/t Fred Lynch):
Inequality is a measure of how far the distribution of incomes differs from if all households had the same income. The gini coefficient is the most popular measure of income inequality. But for my maps I instead use a simple measure of the difference between the median and mean, divided by the median, or the percent by which the mean is higher (or lower) than the median. Values above .39 (the figure for the US as a whole) are considered quite high. It should be noted that areas of highest or lowest incomes are not necessarily very unequal, if mostly all are rich or all are poor. Rather it is the juxtaposition of poor and rich households in the same state or area that best demonstrates the true geography of inequality.
...
Only four states, New York, California, Texas, and Florida, plus Washington, DC have inequality above the national average of .39, indicating both their very large populations, their very complex ethnicity, and large metropolitan economies rich in high income earners, entrenched concentrations of poverty, and high levels of immigration. Surprisingly, these states are even more unequal than the poorest states with the most difficult racial history and delayed development: Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana.



Monday, October 21, 2013

Teach for America as An Interest Group

At Politico, Stephanie Simon reports that Teach for America is a powerful interest group.  It recently  beat the NEA by winning renewal of a provision defining teachers in training -- including TFA recruits -- as "highly qualified."
Convinced that quicker, bolder change is needed, TFA executives are mining their network of 32,000 alumni to identify promising leaders and help them advance.
TFA is now embedding select alumni in congressional offices and in high-ranking jobs in major school districts, including New York City and D.C. It’s providing start-up cash to alumni to launch “game-changing” advocacy groups and business ventures. Its political arm, meanwhile, is recruiting veteran tacticians to identify key levers of power in cities such as Houston — then help alumni seize them.
...
TFA’s most ambitious initiative is a $750,000 fellowship aimed at grooming alumni for posts as state cabinet secretaries or superintendents. Earlier this year, TFA selected 12 alumni to participate. A few already held top education policy jobs in major school districts; TFA helped the rest land senior positions in districts from D.C. to Garland, Tex. TFA pays for each fellow to work with a personal executive coach and sends them on regular leadership retreats.
...
TFA also selected seven alumni this year to work for senators, representatives and the House Education and the Workforce Committee.
The Capitol Hill Fellows do the work of regular congressional staffers. But in an arrangement that Hill ethics experts call highly unusual – though not illegal – their salaries are funded by a private individual. The entire $500,000 cost is picked up by Arthur Rock, a wealthy venture capitalist in San Francisco.
...
TFA’s political arm, Leadership for Educational Equality [sic: Equity], has also been ramping up its activity. The group recruits and trains TFA alumni to run for elected office – and helps them out financially with donations from the LEE treasury, which is stocked by both TFA and by private donors.

Tip O'Neill Said That Reagan Was Evil

   Chris Matthews has written an article for The Boston Globe titled “When Politics Was Friendly.”  Although President Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill had their political differences, he says, they were actually pals.
            Nonsense.
            O’Neill repeatedly attacked Reagan at a very personal level.  “The evil is in the White House at the present time,” he said in July 1984.  “And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold. He's mean. He's got ice water for blood.”

In her memoir, Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan quoted Chief of Staff Don Regan: “Sometimes they’d have a meeting and Tip would be there and they’re laughing and getting along and it’s very warm. And then,’ Regan made a fist and punched it into his palm, ‘Tip would leave, go up to the Hill and turn on him just like a snake! It was treachery!’” 

Self-Interest and Public Interest

A core idea of our book is that self-interest isn't everything. Political motivations involve a complicated and shifting mix of self-interest and public interest.  Michael Barone offers a couple of examples:
People like to do well, but they also want to do good.

Let me cite two professions which that worked to put themselves out of much business, out of altruism.

Firefighters are the first example. Firefighter unions and other organizations have actively promoted safer building codes, restrictions on use of flammable materials and unsafe building materials.

These firefighters have lifted the charred bodies of dead children out of burnt-out buildings. They have seen families destroyed by needless fires.

They have worked to prevent such tragedies. And worked successfully: There are many fewer fires than there used to be.

Firefighters have done themselves out of business. They spend most of their time now on routine services which less expensive EMS personnel could handle, and their unions struggle to prevent layoffs.

Another altruistic profession is dentistry. For many decades dental groups have promoted fluoridation of water. They have vigorously encourage people to brush — and floss — thrice daily.

In their practices, they have seen the pain people suffer from because of defective teeth and painful abscesses. They want to reduce such suffering.

As a result, Americans have far fewer cavities and dentists have far less routine work than they did some years ago. In response, they have developed new specialties — peridontry, enamelizing, orthodonture.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Trust in Government

The Pew Research Center reports:
Public trust in the government, already quite low, has edged even lower in a survey conducted just before the Oct. 16 agreement to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling.
Just 19% say that they trust the government in Washington to do what is right just about always or most of the time, down seven points since January. The current measure matches the level reached in August 2011, following the last battle over the debt ceiling. Explore a Pew Research interactive on Public Trust in Government: 1958-2013.
The share of the public saying they are angry at the federal government, which equaled an all-time high in late September (26%), has ticked up to 30%. Another 55% say they are frustrated with the government. Just 12% say they are basically content with the federal government.
Despite highly negative views of the federal government overall, the public has favorable views of many of its agencies and departments, which were closed by the shutdown. Majorities have favorable opinions of 12 of 13 agencies tested – with the IRS the lone exception (44% favorable).
...
Republicans have less positive views than Democrats of several of the agencies and departments included in the survey. The biggest difference is in opinions of the IRS: 65% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of the IRS compared with 40% of independents and just 23% of Republicans.

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Top-Two Primary

Our chapter on political parties discusses primary elections. Supporters of the top-two primary system argue that it will foster moderation in both parties.  At The Monkey Cage blog, John Sides points to reasons for doubt:
Doug Ahler, Jack Citrin, and Gabriel Lenz conducted an experiment where people voted either using the new top-two ballot or the old closed primary ballot. Moderate candidates fared no better when people voted with the top-two ballot. Thad Kousser, Justin Phillips, and Boris Shor investigated the effect of the top-two primary on representation. They found that legislators tended to stray further from their district’s average voter under the top-two primary than before. In other words, the new California system has improved neither polarization or accountability.
Why don’t these reforms appear to work? There are a variety of reasons. Perhaps there aren’t enough true independents voting to make open primaries a means of reducing polarization. Voters may lack the necessary information or aptitude to distinguish among more moderate and more extreme candidates. Or party elites and donors may ensure that only extreme candidates end up deciding to run.

Friday, October 18, 2013

Tom Foley, RIP

Former House Speaker Tom Foley (D-WA) has died.  Perhaps his finest hour in the speakership came on January 12, 1991, during debate on the Gulf War.  The Philadelphia Inquirer described the scene:
House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D., Wash.) knew he would change no votes as he climbed down from his desk above the floor to speak. He said he spoke as just another member, because this was not a partisan issue. Foley announced he would vote against giving President Bush the power to use military force.

But his message was mostly one of unity. "However you vote," he said, ''let's come together afterwards."

Foley offered a prayer for the country, for those Americans serving in the gulf and "for our president, and he is our president," he said, underscoring his solidarity with Bush.

Then, in his deep, husky voice, Foley said: "May God bless us and guide us and bless us in the fateful days ahead."

In a great roar of applause, the House members sprang to their feet as Foley returned to his desk. Then he rapped the large gavel, silencing the cheering meant for him, and directed the clerk to start the tally that would ultimately allow a war to begin.
Watch his speech.  In light of recent events, it is useful to see what grownups look like:

Thursday, October 17, 2013

More Trouble with the Affordable Care Act

While the political community has been focusing on the shutdown, new details emerge about the troubled implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  At The Hill, Elise Viebeck reports:
Less than one percent of people who visited healthcare.gov in its first week actually enrolled for coverage under ObamaCare, according to a new analysis.

The consulting firm Kantar US Insights estimated that only about 36,000 people completed the enrollment process by Oct. 5, out of about 9.5 million unique visitors to the glitchy ObamaCare portal.

The analysis also found that traffic to healthcare.gov plummeted 88 percent between Oct. 1 and Oct. 13 as users encountered problems with the system.

The figures, if accurate, shed light on the site's rocky rollout and point to the daunting task facing federal health officials over the next six months as they try to convince millions to buy health plans.

Kantar, using data from nonpartisan research firm Millward Brown Digital, estimated that about 9.4 million visited the site during its first week.

Of that number, roughly one-third tried to register and one-third of that group — 1.01 million — completed the registration process.

Even fewer people were able to successfully log in (271,000) and enter the enrollment stage (196,000).
CBS reports:
The president now acknowledges the problems with HealthCare.gov are more serious than he initially led on. "The web site that was supposed to do this all in a seamless way has had way more glitches than I think are acceptable," Mr. Obama said Tuesday in an interview with KCCI-TV.

It was a different President Obama two weeks ago when he tried to compare the health care rollout to the launch of a new iPhone. He said on Oct. 1, 2013, "Within days, they found a glitch, so they fixed it. I don't remember anybody suggesting Apple should stop selling iPhones or iPads."

Except the problem with the web site is it hasn't been fixed. Even supporters, such as the president's former press secretary, Robert Gibbs, say someone should be fired. Gibbs didn't name names, but the head of the Republican Party is pointing straight to the top, calling on Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to go.

Sebelius isn't talking -- at least not since her interview on "The Daily Show" last week went viral after she fumbled her way through it.

Asked host Jon Stewart how many have signed up thus far, Sebelius said, "Fully enrolled? I can't tell you because I don't know."
Michael Barone writes:
The first bombshell went off on Tuesday, from Ezra Klein of the Washington Post's Wonkblog.
Klein was one of those young writers who formed JournoList a few years ago so that like-minded Obama fans could coordinate their lines of argument. It was like one of those college sophomore clubs, not really necessary in an age of ready contact through email, but it shows him as a guy inclined to play team ball. 
So it’s noteworthy when he writes, “So far, the Affordable Care Act’s launch has been a failure. Not ‘troubled.’ Not ‘glitchy.’ A failure.”
Klein notes that the rollout of the Medicare prescription drug program was also rocky two weeks into the process. But later it got smoothed out.
Klein fears Obamacare won’t. It’s not just a problem of overloaded servers. Everyone knew there would be lots of traffic in a nation of 312,000,000 people. Information technology folks say it’s easy to add servers.
It’s harder to get software systems to communicate. And as Klein quotes insurance consultant Robert Laszewski, "the backroom connection between the insurance companies and the federal government is a disaster.”

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

The Lobbysts' Lobby Changes Its Name

The Washington Post reports:
The Washington association that lobbies for lobbyists thinks it’s time to change its name and drop the word “lobbyists.”

The leaders of the American League of Lobbyists insist that the group is making the move because its business has evolved and its members do lots more than walk the halls of Congress and try to shape legislation. They’re into grass-roots organizing and public affairs and other sorts of politics and advocacy. In short, they’re not just lobbyists anymore.

But these savvy professionals also know that reputation matters. And they know that theirs stinks.

“Everybody has that misconception that lobbyists are walking around with a pocketful of cash and that’s about it,” said Monte Ward, the group’s president.

...
 On Monday, the board finalized its decision. On Tuesday, Ward said he would ask the group’s members to approve the switch to the Association of Government Relations Professionals. (The board also approved a new tag line: “Voice of the Lobbying, Public Policy and Advocacy Professions.”) Members will have 30 days to vote. The group’s bylaws require two-thirds approval before the name can be changed.
From the group's website:
You may have seen in today's Politico Influence column that Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI-1) is circulating a letter among his colleagues urging Speaker Boehner to ban registered lobbyists from the Capitol buildings during the shutdown.
ALL's President, Monte Ward, has issued the following statement to the media:
“Banning any constituent or citizen from the United States Capitol and the congressional office buildings to keep them from meeting with their elected officials is unconstitutional.
While we respect the Congressman’s frustration for his constituents, we urge him to remember that all citizens, including lobbyists, have a First Amendment right to redress their grievances. Even though the federal government has shut down, the Constitution and Bill of Rights still stand.
The shutdown is an inconvenience for every citizen, lobbyists included. We wish Congress the very best for a legislative outcome that will reopen the government and put America back in business.”
We understand that Rep. Cicilline is circulating the letter to his colleagues for signatures. We will monitor the situation and continue to defend lobbyists and government relations professionals right to represent their clients and stakeholders to the government.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

God and the Star-Spangled Banner

Our textbook discusses the role of religion in American civic culture.  On page 142 of the second edition, for instance, we note the fourth verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner," our national anthem:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
This rendition has gotten more than 10 million YouTube views over the past three years:

Monday, October 14, 2013

Columbus Day, Holidays, and Federalism

Today is Columbus Day. Federalism affects the observance of holidays, as the Pew Research Center reminds us:
Columbus Day is one of the most inconsistently celebrated U.S. holidays. It’s an official federal holiday, which means federal workers would be getting the day off even if they weren’t furloughed. And because federal offices are closed, so are banks and the bond markets that trade in U.S. government debt (though the stock markets are open).
Beyond that, it’s a grab bag. According to the Council of State Governments’ comprehensive “Book of the States,” only 23 states (plus the District of Columbia) give their workers Columbus Day as a paid holiday. (Tennessee officially does so too, but chooses to celebrate the occasion on the Friday after Thanksgiving.) In Hawaii, today is Discoverers’ Day, though not an official state holiday. Since 1990, South Dakota has marked the second Monday in October as Native Americans Day, an official state holiday. In Nevada and Iowa, statutes “encourage” the governor to issue an annual Columbus Day proclamation but do not designate it a legal holiday.

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Sebelius Repeatedly Said That Health Exchanges Were "On Track"

For months,HHS Secretary Sebelius repeatedly insisted that the health care exchanges were on track.

Kansas City Star, September 20:
Sebelius downplayed a Wall Street Journal report Friday that pricing glitches are being found in the federal system.
“Testing is being done,” Sebelius said. “We’re very much on track to be ready Oct. 1.”
She said any “bumps in the road” will be fixed by the opening date.
Austin American-Statesman, August 8:
Sebelius, who noted that she knew Perry when she served as governor of Kansas, responded to Perry’s criticism with a chuckle.
“First of all there is nothing that is delayed,” she said. “There is nothing that is not on track. I have, again, no idea what it is that he is anticipating in terms of costs to the state.”
Dallas Morning News, August 8:
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius predicted Thursday that computer bugs won’t impede the roll-out of new state health insurance marketplaces on Oct. 1. She also rejected Gov. Rick Perry’s suggestion that Americans grasp Obamacare “all too well” and are rejecting it.

Despite reports that information technology systems may not be fully ready to swap and protect applicants’ information with state Medicaid eligibility computers, Sebelius insisted her federal agency and its contractors are up to the job.
“I’m confident that we will be up and running, and on track, on Oct. 1,” when Americans can begin shopping in the online marketplaces that are being created for each state.
McClatchy News, June 24:
 “We will be ready on Oct. 1st,” Sebelius said Monday. “I’m confident we’re on track to get it done.”
The Hill, April 12:
The Health and Human Services Department will meet its central ObamaCare deadline and does not need a backup plan for delays, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Friday.
Sebelius told the House Ways and Means Committee that a federally run insurance exchange will be up and running by Oct. 1.
“No,” Sebelius said when asked whether there’s a backup plan in case that deadline slips. “We are determined and on track to meet the Oct. 1 deadline.”
But The New York Times reports:
In March, Henry Chao, the chief digital architect for the Obama administration’s new online insurance marketplace, told industry executives that he was deeply worried about the Web site’s debut. “Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience,” he told them.
Two weeks after the rollout, few would say his hopes were realized.
For the past 12 days, a system costing more than $400 million and billed as a one-stop click-and-go hub for citizens seeking health insurance has thwarted the efforts of millions to simply log in. The growing national outcry has deeply embarrassed the White House, which has refused to say how many people have enrolled through the federal exchange.

...
“These are not glitches,” said an insurance executive who has participated in many conference calls on the federal exchange. Like many people interviewed for this article, the executive spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying he did not wish to alienate the federal officials with whom he works. “The extent of the problems is pretty enormous. At the end of our calls, people say, ‘It’s awful, just awful.’ ”
...
By early this year, people inside and outside the federal bureaucracy were raising red flags. “We foresee a train wreck,” an insurance executive working on information technology said in a February interview. “We don’t have the I.T. specifications. The level of angst in health plans is growing by leaps and bounds. The political people in the administration do not understand how far behind they are.”
The Washington Post reports:
The flawed enrollment reports illustrate that the site is bedeviled by problems that go beyond what the Obama administration has acknowledged in explaining the creaky performance of the exchange so far.
At the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services, officials have portrayed the exchange as a victim of its own popularity, with a larger-than-expected crush of Americans rushing to a Web site that wasn’t built to accommodate so many people at once.
That explanation puts the focus up front — on the servers and software that help consumers take the first step of registering for an account. Evidence is emerging from the insurance industry and elsewhere, however, that the exchange also has flaws that show up further along in the process — as consumers try to check whether they qualify for federal subsidies and as insurers try to find out who has enrolled. 
Politico reports:
The glitch-plagued Obamacare rollout might be just the beginning: A series of potential technology problems could thwart the Obama administration’s goal of getting 7 million people enrolled in the new exchanges by the end of March.
Millions of people have already encountered error messages, delays, crashes and stuck accounts. Technology experts and Obamacare backers worry that each step ahead in the process — filling out applications, checking on subsidies and selecting a health insurance plan — creates a potential technology choke point. And that doesn’t even count any additional chaos when people try to use their new health insurance come January.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

How Cable Drives the Agenda

The Pew Research Center reports on Nielsen data:
Almost three out of four U.S. adults (71%) watch local television news and 65% view network newscasts over the course of a month, according to Nielsen data from February 2013. While 38% of adults watch some cable news during the month, cable viewers—particularly the most engaged viewers—spend far more time with that platform than broadcast viewers do with local or network news.1
On average, the cable news audience devotes twice as much time to that news source as local and network news viewers spend on those platforms. And the heaviest cable users are far more immersed in that coverage—watching for more than an hour a day—than the most loyal viewers of broadcast television news. Even those adults who are the heaviest viewers of local and network news spend more time watching cable than those broadcast outlets.
...

[T]he deeper level of viewer engagement with cable news may help to explain why cable television—despite a more limited audience—seems to have an outsized ability to influence the national debate and news agenda. Previous Pew Research Center data have shown that in prime time—when the audience is the largest—cable talk shows tend to hammer away at a somewhat narrow news agenda that magnifies the day’s more polarizing and ideological issues. The Nielsen data make it clear that cable’s audience is staying for a healthy helping of that content.
In one finding that may seem counterintuitive in an era of profound political polarization, significant portions of the Fox News and MSNBC audiences spend time watching both channels. More than a third (34%) of those who watch the liberal MSNBC in their homes also tune in to the conservative Fox News Channel. The reverse is true for roughly a quarter (28%) of Fox News viewers. Even larger proportions of Fox News and MSNBC viewers, roughly half, also spend time watching CNN, which tends to be more ideologically balanced in prime time. (The channel’s new version of Crossfire, which debuted on Sept. 9, follows its formula of delivering opinion from both the left and right.)

Americans Like Divided Government

Republicans are taking a hit as a result of the government shutdown, but James Madison may ride to their rescue in the 2014 midterm election.  Madison famously explained the need for each branch of government to check the others. Americans may not have read Federalist 51, but they get the idea.  Gallup reports:
Even as the division of power in Washington between Republicans and Democrats is wreaking havoc with the federal government, Americans' preference for having one political party run both the White House and Congress is at a record low.

At, 25%, the percentage of Americans today favoring one-party control in Washington is virtually equivalent to the 28% who favor splitting power between the two parties. The plurality, 38%, say it makes no difference.

The latest figures are from an Oct. 3-6 Gallup poll, conducted within the first week of the partial federal government shutdown. The freeze on non-essential services resulted from the failure of President Barack Obama and the Republican-led House of Representatives to agree on the latest continuing resolution needed to fund the government.
...

This raises questions about how potent the issue of partisan balance will be in the 2014 midterm elections or the 2016 presidential election. Both parties may invoke the shutdown fiasco to try to persuade voters to install a single party -- their party -- both in the White House and on Capitol Hill. However, if Americans aren't currently convinced this is the best scenario for the country, it may be difficult to kindle that belief in one or three years.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Look Things Up and Find Things Out

General Sources and Advice
Shutdown Workarounds (or where to look if your usual data site is down)

Is the Time Right for a Third Party?

Our chapter on political parties discussed third partiesGallup reports renewed interest in the subject:
Amid the government shutdown, 60% of Americans say the Democratic and Republicans parties do such a poor job of representing the American people that a third major party is needed. That is the highest Gallup has measured in the 10-year history of this question. A new low of 26% believe the two major parties adequately represent Americans.
The results are consistent with Gallup's finding of more negative opinions of both parties since the shutdown began, including a new low favorable rating for the Republican Party, and Americans' widespread dissatisfaction with the way the nation is being governed.
The prior highs in perceived need for a third party came in August 2010, shortly before that year's midterm elections, when Americans were dissatisfied with government and the Tea Party movement was emerging as a political force; and in 2007, when the newly elected Democratic congressional majority was clashing with then-President George W. Bush.
In the same vein AP-GfK poll shows dissatisfaction with the political establishment:

 

So should we expect a major third party to emerge in the next year?  The odds stack against it.  For one thing, third parties face daunting obstacles even in getting on the ballot.  In California's "top-two" primary system, for instance, the top-two vote getters in the June primary -- regardless of party -- advance to the general election.  The system effectively bars third party candidates from the November election, except in districts that are so lopsided in favor of one of the major parties that the other does not even bother to field a candidate. (A court has rejected a challenge to the system.)  Campaign finance laws also work against third parties


Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Civic Learning and Commuters

Inside Higher Ed reports on the challenge of promoting civic engagement at commuter schools.  It describes Northeastern Illinois University's effort to map student residences and link them with service opportunities.
The mapping project is part of a larger civic engagement initiative underway at Northeastern Illinois. And that initiative is part of a growing effort by officials at commuter universities, community colleges and minority-serving institutions to put adult and other students to work on city streets.
Missouri State University at Springfield employees helped an online student in Colorado set up a stream restoration project. An official at Waubonsee Community College, a Hispanic-serving institution in Illinois, is forming a student leadership program that melds academic and civic learning.
Those students have just as much to gain from community engagement -- greater familiarity with heir surroundings, connecting to people they live with, understanding how coursework relates to real life -- but their campuses may not have the built-in avenues to get them involved. For instance, there are no Greek houses or residence hall associations to organize projects. There are typically fewer resources devoted to student affairs. There may not be as many active student organizations, or students may simply not have the time to seek them out.
Northeastern Illinois and others are tackling this idea as part of their involvement in the Lead Initiative on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement, a new coalition organized by NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. They are not the first to target nontraditional students in civic engagement efforts, but are adding to a growing trend and hoping their networking with the 73 campuses in Lead will help drive best practices.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Polarization and the Shutdown

Both sides in the shutdown seem to be responding to their partisans in the electorate.  Pew reports:
The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Oct. 3-6 among 1,000 adults, finds 44% say Republican leaders should give ground on their demand that any budget deal include cuts or delays to the 2010 health care law. Nearly as many (42%) say it is Obama who should give ground, by agreeing to changes in the health care law.

Even when asked if the only way to end the shutdown soon is for their side to give ground on the health care issue, most are unwilling to back down. A majority of Democrats (58%) say it would be unacceptable for Obama to agree to cuts or delays in the Affordable Care Act, even if this is the only way to resolve the shutdown soon. Roughly the same share of Republicans (54%) say it would be unacceptable for GOP leaders to agree to any deal that does not include cuts or delays to Obamacare.

Monday, October 7, 2013

Noncitizens and Juries: A Bill Veto

Patrick McGreevy reports at The Los Angeles Times that Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA) has vetoed a bill allowing legal aliens to serve on juries.
Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship,” Brown wrote in his veto message. “This bill would permit lawful permanent residents who are not citizens to serve on a jury. I don’t think that’s right.”

...
Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont), said he was disappointed that the governor vetoed the jury bill. "Lawful permanent immigrants are part of the fabric of our communities, and they benefit from the protections of our laws, so it is fair and just that they be asked to share in the obligation to do jury duty, just as they serve in our courts, schools, police departments and armed forces," Wieckowski said. "I don’t see anything wrong with imposing this civic obligation on immigrants who can spend the rest of their lives in the United States.”
...
The bill, AB 1401, by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, divided the Legislature, with Republicans including Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine arguing that serving as a juror is a special calling that warrants the special standing that citizenship provides. Other countries have different standards for guilt, innocence and due process, he noted.

“Allowing non-citizens to serve on juries threatens the integrity of our judicial system,” Anderson said. “In this country, we believe in due process and you’re innocent until proven guilty. Having non-citizens on a jury will deny people from getting a fair trial.”

Inequality, Education, California, and America

A number of posts have discussed inequality, as well as its relationship to educationInside Higher Ed reports:
When the College Board released a report on higher education’s payoff in 2010, some critics questioned whether the organization was overstating the benefits that accrue to individuals and society from going to college. Since that time, those critics have become part of a much larger chorus, with pundits and politicians alike asking whether too many people are going to college. So, for the latest installment of its report, “Education Pays,” the College Board issued a second report specifically to explain its analysis.

As a supplement to the 2013 Education Pays report -- which finds that the median earnings of bachelor's-degree recipients during a 40-year full-time working life are 65 percent higher than those of high school graduates -- the College Board addresses the “conflicting statements and views” in public discussions of higher education.
At The Daily Beast, Joel Kotkin writes of the Golden-for-Some State:
As late as the 80s, California was democratic in a fundamental sense, a place for outsiders and, increasingly, immigrants—roughly 60 percent of the population was considered middle class. Now, instead of a land of opportunity, California has become increasingly feudal. According to recent census estimates, the state suffers some of the highest levels of inequality in the country. By some estimates, the state’s level of inequality compares with that of such global models as the Dominican Republic, Gambia, and the Republic of the Congo.

At the same time, the Golden State now suffers the highest level of poverty in the country—23.5 percent compared to 16 percent nationally—worse than long-term hard luck cases like Mississippi. It is also now home to roughly one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients, almost three times its proportion of the nation’s population.

Like medieval serfs, increasing numbers of Californians are downwardly mobile, and doing worse than their parents: native born Latinos actually have shorter lifespans than their parents, according to one recent report. Nor are things expected to get better any time soon. According to a recent Hoover Institution survey, most Californians expect their incomes to stagnate in the coming six months, a sense widely shared among the young, whites, Latinos, females, and the less educated.

Some of these trends can be found nationwide, but they have become pronounced and are metastasizing more quickly in the Golden State. As late as the 80s, the state was about as egalitarian as the rest of the country. Now, for the first time in decades, the middle class is a minority, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Sunday, October 6, 2013

Obamacare Stories

Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.
Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.
Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.
...
 "I was laughing at Boehner -- until the mail came today," Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare.
"I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy."
Both Vinson and Waschura have adjusted gross incomes greater than four times the federal poverty level -- the cutoff for a tax credit. And while both said they anticipated their rates would go up, they didn't realize they would rise so much.
"Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally."
At Slate, John Dickeron reports on one woman's attempt to get signup information on a "Live Chat."
 Thanks for contacting us. My name is PGSTX0534. To protect your privacy, please don't provide any personal information, like Social Security Number, or any other sensitive medical or personal information.
[4:30:51 pm]: PGSTX0534
Hello, how may I help you today?
[4:31:12 pm]: Alice
My information is not recording correctly in the summary of my application
[4:31:35 pm]: Alice
I have tried to edit it multiple times and it is still wrong
[4:32:21 pm]: PGSTX0534
Thanks for your interest in the Health Insurance Marketplace. We have a lot of visitors trying to use our website right now. That is causing some glitches for some people trying to create accounts or log in. Keep trying, and thanks for your patience. We'll continue working to improve the site so you can get covered
[4:32:40 pm]: Alice
what does that mean?
[4:32:52 pm]: Alice
It says my application is "in Progress"
[4:33:12 pm]: Alice
Does that mean it is not completed and I can continue to try to edit it?
[4:33:55 pm]: Alice
Hello??
[4:34:14 pm]: PGSTX0534
Thank you. One moment please while I look that up.
[4:36:19 pm]: PGSTX0534
The only way we can see your application is you will have to call The Health Insurance Marketplace Call Center at 1-800-318-2596. We are open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to assist you.
[4:36:47 pm]: Alice
What does the Chat Service do then?
She received no response to her last question.

Non-Lobbying Lobbying at the State Level

A number of posts have discussed "shadow lobbying" or "non-lobbying lobbying" -- issue advocacy activities that serve an interest group but technically do not count as lobbying and are thus not subject to the same disclosure requirements.  It happens at the state level, too. The Sacramento Bee reports on Devon Ford, an associate in the firm California Strategies, who wanted lawmakers to attend an event at the Auto Club Speedway.
The excursion was billed as an educational opportunity for legislators and their staff to learn about what he called “the excitement of IndyCar racing,” and included a tour of the garage, face time with Speedway’s president and dinner in the private skybox during the race.

But because the firm was inviting government officials, Ford issued a warning in an email to colleagues.

“Our legal counsel reminds us that registered state lobbyists are prohibited from ‘arranging’ for the giving of a gift to a public official,” Ford wrote in a September 2012 email obtained by The Sacramento Bee.

“If you are a registered state lobbyist and would like to recommend a specific public official receive an invitation from California Strategies to attend this event, please make your recommendation to me as soon as possible.”

In other words: The firm’s lobbyists, who operate under strict disclosure rules and are prohibited from giving politicians gifts worth more than $10, couldn’t legally invite government officials to the race. But they could make sure key politicians were invited by having their non-lobbyist colleagues make the invitation
...
Today, California Strategies comprises two sister companies that share an office, a website and many of the same staff.

One company is registered to lobby, and files quarterly reports to the secretary of state detailing its clients and income. The public affairs branch, on the other hand, largely works out of the public eye. It’s made up of well-connected former government officials who offer strategic consulting that’s supposed to be more general than lobbying.

Saturday, October 5, 2013

News and Generations

At Poynter, Andy Kohut writes:
News organizations have been confronting the problem of a shrinking audience for more than a decade, but trends strongly suggest that these difficulties may only worsen over time. Today’s younger and middle-aged audience seems unlikely to ever match the avid news interest of the generations they will replace, even as they enthusiastically transition to the Internet as their principal source of news.
Pew Research longitudinal surveys find that Gen Xers (33-47 years old) and Millennials (18-31 years old), who spent less time than older people following the news at the outset of their adulthood, have so far shown little indication that that they will become heavier news consumers as they age.

Notably, a 2012 Pew Research national poll found members of the Silent generation (67-84 years old) spending 84 minutes watching, reading or listening to the news the day before the survey interview. Boomers (48-66 years old), did not lag far behind (77 minutes), but Xers and Millennials spent much less time: 66 minutes and 46 minutes, respectively.
The truly troubling trend for the media is that Pew Research surveys give little indication that news consumption increases among members of the younger age groups as they get older. For example, in 2004 Xers reported following the news about as often as they did in 2012 (75 minutes versus 77 minutes). The eight-year trend for Millennials was equally flat (63 minutes versus 66 minutes).