Why are rates rising? The Fed’s reaction to inflation is one reason. It may also have something to do with the extreme investments being made in AI, and these companies’ demand for credit. And it’s likely connected to the deficit panic—concern about the expansion of the national debt and the government’s ability to sustain it. Investors are starting to think of long-term Treasurys as riskier than they once did, and they’re demanding more money in exchange for taking on America’s debt. At the same time, the federal government has shown no real appetite to pull its two main levers for reducing the debt: cutting spending and raising taxes.
Jared Bernstein, the former head of Joe Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in The Atlantic a few months ago that he’d “flipped from dove to hawk”—and told me this week that it was partly the government’s complacency on this issue that spurred this change. “Neither side seems particularly motivated to do much of anything about this,” he said. Rather than attending to the debt problem, politicians of both parties have instituted major tax cuts and increased spending over the past 25 years. The U.S. had its credit downgraded by a major ratings agency last spring, in part because of rising debt. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will add an estimated $4.7 trillion to the deficit through 2035, and Donald Trump’s efforts to decrease immigration will add another half a trillion to that number over the same period, per the Congressional Budget Office.
Bessette Pitney Text
Bessette/Pitney’s AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS: DELIBERATION, DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP reviews the idea of "deliberative democracy." Building on the book, this blog offers insights, analysis, and facts about recent events.
Search This Blog
Friday, August 28, 2026
Debt and Interest Rates
Labels:
budget,
debt,
deficit,
government,
interest rates,
political science,
politics,
taxation
Thursday, August 27, 2026
Wealthy Students, Wealthy Colleges
Many posts have discussed economic and educational inequality.
The Meritocratic Consensus and Stratification in Higher Education Zachary Bleemer and Jesse Rothstein * August 2026
Abstract
The Meritocratic Consensus and Stratification in Higher Education Zachary Bleemer and Jesse Rothstein * August 2026
Abstract
American colleges and universities are highly stratified by pre-college academic achievement, family background, and institutional resources. We study the meritocratic consensus in American higher education: colleges that high-testing students (who are generally also from high-income families) attend spend dramatically more on instruction than do those that enroll lower-testing students. Stratification by test scores has been largely stable since the 1960s, but the stratification of instructional resources has risen sharply since 1970 at both private and public institutions. Non-academic admissions criteria like athletics, legacy, and affirmative action are second-order in determining the allocation of students to universities. Potential economic justifications for the positive association of instructional expenditures with student prior achievement– q-complementarity between achievement and resources, convex social returns to high human capital, and incentives to invest in learning prior to college– have little empirical support. Resource stratification across universities has not increased in the past decade, largely due to increased public funding of universities that enroll lower-testing students through financial aid programs like California’s CalGrant, but stratification within institutions is now rising swiftly. JEL Codes: I23, I24, N32, Z13
Labels:
government,
higher education,
inequality,
political science,
politics
Wednesday, August 26, 2026
Noncitizen Voting?
Many posts have discussed immigration. Illegal voting by noncitizens is rare.
Jude Joffe-Block and Miles Parks at NPR:
In a call with Nevada state election officials earlier this month, the Trump administration's point person on noncitizen voting insisted her team was working "in good faith."
"We are an open book here," said Heather Honey, an official at the Department of Homeland Security, who previously worked to push election falsehoods before her current post. "We are acting in very good faith. And we just want to help you."
But more than a month after President Trump touted in a primetime address that his administration had found more than 250,000 noncitizens on the voter rolls of Nevada and just three other states, those states are still asking for proof or even a complete list of the voters federal officials say should be investigated.
In the Nevada call, federal officials did more to detail how they arrived at their numbers, but their statements also undermined the broader claim that American elections are rife with noncitizen voters.
DHS initially announced it had found close to 16,000 noncitizens on Nevada's voter list. But a DHS official acknowledged in the meeting with Nevada officials that number was "the ceiling" and each voter still had to be manually reviewed. Then, a day later, DHS provided the state with a list of 185 ID numbers pertaining to voters the agency said it was confident were noncitizens. NPR acquired records and a recording of the video call, first reported by The New York Times, via a public record request.
Nevada asked for more information on that smaller group of 185 voters, and the data points used to match them to noncitizens. DHS declined to provide that. The agency did say it still had more than 14,000 Nevada voters that "need additional review," and it also provided the state with a list of more than 6,000 voter IDs the agency said were "higher confidence" matches but had yet to be reviewed.
Labels:
Donald Trump,
government,
immigration,
lying,
political science,
politics,
voting rights
Tuesday, August 25, 2026
Confidence in College
Many posts have discussed economic and educational inequality.
Daniel Cox at the Survey Center on American Life:
Most people believe there is a problem with higher education. In the last 10 years, confidence in college has collapsed among the public. Gallup found that only 38 percent of Americans report having a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in higher education, a nearly 20-point drop from 2015. Politics is an obvious culprit for the country’s diminished confidence. Republicans have experienced a more precipitous slide in support than Democrats, widening a modest partisan divide in views of higher education into a chasm. But there is another issue that looms even larger over higher education. Its cost. A Pew poll asked all Americans what they saw as the biggest problem in higher education and found the nearly universal issue was lack of affordability. Most Americans say that colleges are doing a lousy job of preparing students to find well-paying jobs. Fewer, but still a substantial number, say schools are failing to expose students to diverse perspectives. However, cost almost always tops the list of complaints. Even Americans who are the most dissatisfied with the direction of higher education—a group that is more right-leaning—are as likely to say it has to do with cost as politics.
This is a very predictable result of the massive increase in the cost of four years of college. Public and private universities have both seen dramatic price increases over the last few decades. The average cost of a college education in the early 70s hovered around $13k. Now, it is over $30k a year. The price tag at many small liberal arts schools, like Bates, can approach $100,000 per year. Students routinely graduate with loans that reach the six-figure territory and take years, or even decades, to pay off.\
The ideological battles being fought on many campuses are almost exclusively waged among elites. Debates over DEI initiatives, Gaza, antisemitism, and transgender rights dominate public attention rather than conversations about what can be done to make colleges work for the working class. The students who need the most. When public support for higher education wanes, the biggest losers are those who need them to work—not as bastions of progressive thought, but as drivers of economic opportunity, civic responsibility, and social solidarity. It’s no coincidence that some of the fiercest critics of higher education are found among those who have amassed considerable wealth and influence.
Monday, August 24, 2026
Why Has Violent Crime Dropped?
Many posts have discussed crime in the United States.
By the numbers: The U.S. violent-crime rate plunged 9.7% in 2025, the largest annual decline since FBI national estimates began 90 years ago.The murder rate fell 18.5% to 4.1 per 100,000 people, tying 1955 and 1956 for the lowest since national estimates began.
And the decline hasn't stopped: An Axios analysis shows violent crime in big cities fell again in the first half of 2026.
Criminologists describe a complicated picture of why crime is down. No one's sure, but several overlapping forces seem to be driving the drop:
- Vice consumption cooled: Pandemic-era spikes in alcohol consumption, illicit drug use and firearm purchases — three factors linked to the 2020–2021 homicide surge — have receded.
- Return to routine: COVID lockdowns disrupted community guardrails and displaced young men and teens. Employment and social routines have since stabilized.
- Law enforcement tech boom: Police departments are using more AI tools, predictive analytics and platforms such as Palantir's Gotham to deploy resources and identify crime hotspots.
Under-the-radar demographic and health trends are also quietly reshaping public safety:The proportion of young people in America is declining, shrinking the demographic most historically linked to street crime. In a fascinating medical twist, the explosion of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs (like Ozempic) has been clinically linked to decreased alcohol abuse and improved impulse control — two major factors in violent offenses.
Labels:
coronavirus,
crime,
demographics,
drugs,
government,
law enforcement,
political science,
politics,
violence
"An Outsourced Staff" --Cicero Institute and Homelessness Policy
A team from the Cicero Institute, an upstart think tank, flew to Indiana this year to help make it a crime for homeless people to sleep on the street.
It was their third attempt. Even in the conservative state, previous efforts to ban street camping had failed. Catholic leaders said the measure would hurt the poor, and sheriffs had warned that arrests would crowd the jails. “We’re Hoosiers — we’re better than that,” a Republican state senator, Ron Alting, said last year, urging a more caring approach.
But much had changed since the group, founded by Joe Lonsdale, a billionaire ally of President Trump’s, had made its initial efforts. Mr. Trump had issued an executive order on homelessness that so fully reflected Cicero’s agenda it was hard to tell
where the group stopped and White House policy began. The sponsor of the Indiana law was fresh from a Cicero conference, Cicero lobbyists worked the bill, and three Cicero analysts testified that the threat of arrests would push homeless people into treatment for mental illness or addiction.
The ban passed just before the legislature adjourned.
...
With few rival groups working on homelessness, the institute had its lane. After Texas passed a statewide camping ban in 2021, Cicero made it into a model bill to take to other states.
Cicero was too small to matter in Washington, but about two dozen states had Republican control of the legislature and governorship. For harried legislators frustrated by encampments, Cicero’s bill offered a stance. And with no housing or services included, it required no spending.
“In most states, state legislators don’t even have policy staff,” explained Jared Meyer, an early Cicero recruit, on Mr. Lonsdale’s podcast. “The best thing you can do is be an outsourced staff.”
Sunday, August 23, 2026
Race and Refugees
Many posts have discussed immigration and asylum. Critics suggest that race might just possibly influence administration decisions on asylum.
The number of refugees admitted to the United States has fallen significantly during President Donald Trump’s second term in office and could hit its lowest level on record this fiscal year, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. State Department data.
The federal government has admitted 10,258 refugees through the first 10 months of fiscal year 2026, which ends on Sept. 30. That’s down from 38,102 refugees in fiscal 2025 and 100,034 in fiscal 2024. (President Joe Biden was in office for part of fiscal 2025 and all of fiscal 2024.)
...
Refugees from South Africa make up almost all the refugees to the U.S. so far in fiscal 2026. Before this fiscal year, South Africans never appeared among the top origin groups. In fact, fiscal 2025 was the first year that the U.S. admitted more than just one or two South African refugees.
The large increase in South African refugees reflects an executive order Trump signed in 2025 that said the federal government would prioritize resettling Afrikaners – an ethnic group descended from mainly Dutch, German and French colonial settlers in South Africa. The executive order said the group faced “government-sponsored race-based discrimination” in South Africa, including the government seizure of farms owned by White South Africans. Those claims have been disputed.
The influx of refugees from South Africa marks a major change in the makeup of refugees to the U.S.
\
People from the Democratic Republic of the Congo made up the largest share of refugees to the U.S. every year from fiscal 2016 through fiscal 2024. The nation has seen ongoing fighting and internal displacement that’s peaked in recent years. So far in fiscal 2026, the federal government has not admitted any refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Labels:
asylum,
government,
immigration,
political science,
politics,
refugees
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)