Showing posts with label ‘Great. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ‘Great. Show all posts

Saturday, November 30, 2013

How Is ObamaCare "Deadline Day" Going? Not Great


(Newser) – Today’s the day: The day the White House pledged to get Healthcare.gov working for the “vast majority” of users. So how’s it going? NBC News describes it as being “off to a rocky start.” The website was down for maintenance until 8am Eastern today, an 11-hour outage that lasted seven hours longer than a typical maintenance period. But it’s not clear whether that’s a bad thing, or just a sign that the administration is nervous. If all has gone according to plan, officials said the website’s capacity could be doubled, so it should be able to handle 50,000 visitors simultaneously.


But tech specialists tell Reuters it will be hard to independently assess whether the site has reached that goal, because any issues that still remain are likely buried deeper in the site. Tellingly, administration officials said today that 90% of users are now able to create an account, but did not say whether that same percentage would actually be able to finish enrolling. And officials are still warning that there will be times the site is overwhelmed, and are encouraging people to visit during off-peak hours (so, not in the middle of the day). And, as Politico notes, it’s possible the site will hold up just fine over the holiday weekend, only to crash again Monday. An official progress report is expected tomorrow.




Politics from Newser



How Is ObamaCare "Deadline Day" Going? Not Great

Thursday, September 26, 2013

The Late, Great Middle Class


The American middle class, like the American economy in general, is ailing. Labor-force participation has hit a 35-year low.


Median household income is lower than it was five years ago. Only the top 5 percent of households have seen their incomes rise under President Obama.


Commuters are paying more than twice as much for gas as they were in 2008. Federal payouts for food stamps, unemployment insurance, and disability insurance have reached unprecedented levels.


Meanwhile, the country is still running near-record budget deficits and is burdened by $ 17 trillion in aggregate debt. Yet the stock market is soaring.


How can we make sense of all this contradictory nonsense? Irony. 


Obama promised to restore the middle class. In truth, he has enacted the very policies that have done it the most damage in years. That paradox may explain why his base of support remains the very rich and the very poor. Goldman Sachs, federal bureaucrats, and aid recipients are helped in a way that the strapped hardware-store owner, Starbucks barista, and part-time welder are not.


For all the talk of infrastructure or stimulus, the latest $ 6 trillion in federal borrowing seems to have been wasted on bailing out insider banks and green companies, growing the federal work force, regulating the private sector into stasis, and subsidizing those who are not working.


The Federal Reserve still keeps interest rates at near zero. That mostly helps Wall Street, where money flows madly in search of any sort of return.


Most real interest rates for consumer purchases somehow remain exorbitant. Banks obtain their money cheaply and lend it out expensively. No wonder that so many Wall Street and banking executives — Timothy Geithner, Jack Lew, Peter Orszag, Gene Sperling, Larry Summers — revolve in and out of the highest levels of this “no revolving door” administration.


Middle-class workers see little chance of retiring when their meager savings earn almost no interest, so they are apt to stay on the job longer. Their continuance only makes unemployment rates for young entry-level workers even worse.


Obama always threatened higher taxes on the well-off. He achieved that goal with a new 39.6 percent federal rate on upper incomes, a rate paid on top of state and payroll taxes. Yet such steep taxes do not much affect the super-rich. Their income is often exempted through sophisticated tax-avoidance or, more often, earned through less-taxed capital gains.


Small employers in many states have no such recourse and now pay more than half their incomes in assorted federal, state, and local taxes. Naturally, they are hiring fewer people and making fewer capital investments.


That greater tax hit might have been worth it had the new rates been part of a balanced-budget agreement like the Bill Clinton–Newt Gingrich deal of 1997, which froze spending levels and, for a time, stopped our ruinous borrowing.


Not this time. We end up with the worst of all worlds: once again a 39 percent top tax rate, but now with out-of-control federal spending and more multibillion-dollar budget deficits.


By virtually shutting down gas and oil leases on federal lands, the administration has declined the chance to create millions of new energy jobs and to lower fuel prices. For now, lower power bills and gasoline prices, and the creation of more jobs in energy, depend entirely on those who drill on private lands — despite, not because of, federal efforts.


Even the many sires of Obamacare now deny their paternity. Unions want out of it. Congress demands exclusion from it. Well-connected businesses won exemption from it.


The poor who mostly do not pay federal income taxes will get a largely free, bureaucratized federal health-care system. Many of the rich praise Obamacare but will quietly use their own money to avoid it. The middle class will see their premiums soar and the quality of their coverage erode.


These are surreal times. Wealthy elites who help to shut down jobs in energy, timber, and mining are deemed liberal — but not always so the middle classes, who suffer the consequences in lost jobs and higher prices.


Universities voice progressive bromides, but they care mostly for the tenured and the technocrat, not the part-timer and the indebted student. Thanks to soaring tuition, campus is now the haunt of the very wealthy who can afford it and the very poor who are often exempted from it. The less romantic middle class goes $ 1 trillion into debt for their high-interest student loans.


Never has it been so good to be invested in a vastly expanding federal government — either to distribute or receive federal subsidies. Never has it been so lucrative to work in banking or on Wall Street. And never has it been so bad to try to find a decent job making something real.


To paraphrase the Roman historian Tacitus, where we have made a desert of the middle class, we call it a recovery. 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



The Late, Great Middle Class

The Late, Great Middle Class


The American middle class, like the American economy in general, is ailing. Labor-force participation has hit a 35-year low.


Median household income is lower than it was five years ago. Only the top 5 percent of households have seen their incomes rise under President Obama.


Commuters are paying more than twice as much for gas as they were in 2008. Federal payouts for food stamps, unemployment insurance, and disability insurance have reached unprecedented levels.


Meanwhile, the country is still running near-record budget deficits and is burdened by $ 17 trillion in aggregate debt. Yet the stock market is soaring.


How can we make sense of all this contradictory nonsense? Irony. 


Obama promised to restore the middle class. In truth, he has enacted the very policies that have done it the most damage in years. That paradox may explain why his base of support remains the very rich and the very poor. Goldman Sachs, federal bureaucrats, and aid recipients are helped in a way that the strapped hardware-store owner, Starbucks barista, and part-time welder are not.


For all the talk of infrastructure or stimulus, the latest $ 6 trillion in federal borrowing seems to have been wasted on bailing out insider banks and green companies, growing the federal work force, regulating the private sector into stasis, and subsidizing those who are not working.


The Federal Reserve still keeps interest rates at near zero. That mostly helps Wall Street, where money flows madly in search of any sort of return.


Most real interest rates for consumer purchases somehow remain exorbitant. Banks obtain their money cheaply and lend it out expensively. No wonder that so many Wall Street and banking executives — Timothy Geithner, Jack Lew, Peter Orszag, Gene Sperling, Larry Summers — revolve in and out of the highest levels of this “no revolving door” administration.


Middle-class workers see little chance of retiring when their meager savings earn almost no interest, so they are apt to stay on the job longer. Their continuance only makes unemployment rates for young entry-level workers even worse.


Obama always threatened higher taxes on the well-off. He achieved that goal with a new 39.6 percent federal rate on upper incomes, a rate paid on top of state and payroll taxes. Yet such steep taxes do not much affect the super-rich. Their income is often exempted through sophisticated tax-avoidance or, more often, earned through less-taxed capital gains.


Small employers in many states have no such recourse and now pay more than half their incomes in assorted federal, state, and local taxes. Naturally, they are hiring fewer people and making fewer capital investments.


That greater tax hit might have been worth it had the new rates been part of a balanced-budget agreement like the Bill Clinton–Newt Gingrich deal of 1997, which froze spending levels and, for a time, stopped our ruinous borrowing.


Not this time. We end up with the worst of all worlds: once again a 39 percent top tax rate, but now with out-of-control federal spending and more multibillion-dollar budget deficits.


By virtually shutting down gas and oil leases on federal lands, the administration has declined the chance to create millions of new energy jobs and to lower fuel prices. For now, lower power bills and gasoline prices, and the creation of more jobs in energy, depend entirely on those who drill on private lands — despite, not because of, federal efforts.


Even the many sires of Obamacare now deny their paternity. Unions want out of it. Congress demands exclusion from it. Well-connected businesses won exemption from it.


The poor who mostly do not pay federal income taxes will get a largely free, bureaucratized federal health-care system. Many of the rich praise Obamacare but will quietly use their own money to avoid it. The middle class will see their premiums soar and the quality of their coverage erode.


These are surreal times. Wealthy elites who help to shut down jobs in energy, timber, and mining are deemed liberal — but not always so the middle classes, who suffer the consequences in lost jobs and higher prices.


Universities voice progressive bromides, but they care mostly for the tenured and the technocrat, not the part-timer and the indebted student. Thanks to soaring tuition, campus is now the haunt of the very wealthy who can afford it and the very poor who are often exempted from it. The less romantic middle class goes $ 1 trillion into debt for their high-interest student loans.


Never has it been so good to be invested in a vastly expanding federal government — either to distribute or receive federal subsidies. Never has it been so lucrative to work in banking or on Wall Street. And never has it been so bad to try to find a decent job making something real.


To paraphrase the Roman historian Tacitus, where we have made a desert of the middle class, we call it a recovery. 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



The Late, Great Middle Class

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Great, Harvard Business School finally cares about inequality. Will they do anything about it? | Sadhbh Walshe


There has always been a divide between the haves and the have nots, but it’s never been this extreme – on campus or in the world


Congratulations, you get into Harvard Business School (HBS), arguably the most elite graduate school in the world. Your journey there likely involved sacrifices and lots of hard work, especially if you had to scrape together the tuition fees ($ 50,000 a year is the going rate) by yourself, but you made it into the cool club. Now you get to rub shoulders with top scholars, not to mention many future business and political leaders. But did the university forget to mention that you will likely be made to feel like a second-class citizen?


This, apparently, is the experience for many students who make it into Ivy League institutions without the assistance of a trust fund or contributions from the bank of mom and dad. Responding to a recent New York Times story that focused on the school’s efforts to achieve gender equity, many students and alumni pointed out that class divisions are the bigger problem.


It can’t be much fun for students who earned their place in a top school on merit to find themselves excluded from the power players like those who get to join the “Section X” society where only the ultra privileged are welcome. This brush with inequality could be the best thing that ever happened for future HBS graduates, however, should they choose to put their experience to good use.


The inequality that is a “thing now” in the business school at Harvard (among other top institutions) is also a major thing in the real world. A follow up New York Times story quoted a reader, who identified himself as Ken H, as saying that in the 1970s when he attended HBS the tone at the school was “downright egalitarian” and that flashing money around was considered to be in bad taste. He went on to make the important point that “maybe what has changed isn’t so much HBS, but America”. There has always been (and probably always will be) a divide between the haves and the have nots, but it’s never been as extreme as it is today, nor have the consequences of the division been so widely felt.


Who better to address this inequality, however, than the future business and political leaders who get a taste of what social exclusion is like while they are studying at elite colleges.


Much has been written about how income inequality has increased exponentially in the United States since the 1970s, but just to illustrate how much worse things have gotten, here are a few choice statistics: in 1965, a typical CEO was paid around 20 times what an average employee earned. Today they are paid nearly 273 times the average employee. Meanwhile during the same period, wage rates for almost everyone else out the very top stagnated or declined, and the bottom 20% (whose incomes decreased by a whopping 30%) were hit the hardest.


So now we have a situation where the top 1% of Americans control 43% of the country’s financial wealth while the bottom 80% control a meagre 7%. Put simply, the rich have gotten a lot richer at the expense of everyone else. No wonder then that this staggering inequality has crept into the most elite of institutions where members of an exclusive “Section X” get to jet off to Iceland for the weekend and throw lavish parties that only members of their own social class are invited to, leaving many of their less well off class mates to feel like they are missing out on important networking opportunities.


But here’s the thing, even though some students at HBS and other elite colleges may feel (with good reason) that they will not enjoy the same easy route to becoming a master of the universe as “Section X” types, they are still extremely well positioned to become the business and political leaders of the future. Very few HBS graduates are likely to end up living on food stamps, but they could do a lot, if they so choose, to help those who earn so little that they need food stamps to survive.


There is a growing movement to address wage inequality in America, as evidenced by the wave of strikes by fast food workers and Walmart employees, but it’s mostly a bottom up effort. How great would it be if future HBS graduates were to exploit their own brush with injustice to tackle the systemic injustice that prevents so many Americans from getting ahead?


Corporate boards and many of the top jobs at Fortune 500 companies tend to be occupied by the alumni of elite universities. Many sitting members of congress also graduated from top colleges such as Harvard, Stanford or Yale. This means that many of the HBS students of today, even those who feel that their opportunities are being compromised by elitism, are likely to end up in positions of power.


Imagine if they used that power to level the playing field – by promoting efforts to close the wage gap, helping improve education opportunities for everyone and mandating that the minimum wage be a living wage – instead of maintaining the status quo. That would be a far better way for students who are genuinely offended by class differences to exact revenge on the ultra-wealthy than moaning about not getting invited to the all the best parties.





theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds









Comment is free | theguardian.com

Great, Harvard Business School finally cares about inequality. Will they do anything about it? | Sadhbh Walshe

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

What great writing can teach us about Trayvon Martin

One issue I like to address with my writing students is the vague identity adjective — or, when a student identifies a character as, say, “the black guy.” I also often come across “the white guy” or “the Jewish girl,” or “the gay guy,” or “the redneck guy,” or “the Asian girl,” etc. The student is using race or ethnicity as an identifier, without any other specific details to bring this character to life. The writer assumes that this simple adjective will give us all we need to know about a character.


Once, I had a student who was quite smart, vocal in class, and turned in a story that was otherwise rather well-written. But he did describe one character at a party as “the Jewish guy” and left it at that. I asked him, in a conference, what kind of Jewish guy this particular Jewish guy was.


“What do you mean?” he asked.


I said there were lots of types of Jewish guys. What region was he from? Was he from Brooklyn, say, or Beverly Hills? Was he religious or secular? Was he attached to his Jewish identity or did he want to hide from it? What did he look like? What were his interests?


The student squirmed, uncomfortable.


“There’s not just one type of Jewish guy,” I said, carefully.


Continue Reading…





    




Salon.com



What great writing can teach us about Trayvon Martin