Michele Bachmann got a cease and desist letter from Tom Petty for using this song as her theme music. As Steve Simels points out, it’s not our fault if the only “musician” Republicans have is Ted Nugent:
I’ve written several times about the toxic coal ash generated by mountaintop mining and how it poisons the air and water around it. It’s really quite a monumental thing, but as you know, anything to do with the energy industry in America is played down by most of the media. Now there’s this:
Researchers found “significantly higher” rates of birth defects in babies born near mountaintop removal mining sites than those in non-mining areas, according to a new study released last week.
Mountaintop removal mining is a particularly environmentally destructive type of resource extraction that involves using explosives to blow the tops off of mountains to expose coal underneath the soil and rock. The unusable dirt and gravel are then disposed of in adjacent valleys and streams. MTR is used prominently in the Appalachian region of the eastern United States.
The mining study, published in the journal Environmental Research, examined over 1.8 million live birth records from 1996 to 2003 using National Center for Health Statistics data from the central Appalachian states of West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee.
Continue Reading »
Oh, God, FINALLY. I think this is the first daytime rain in a couple of months.
You’d almost think it was it was on purpose, wouldn’t you?
Republican governors have touted spending cuts as both fiscally responsible, and economically prudent. But a new analysis casts doubt on that narrative.
In recent months, Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) andGov. John Kasich (R-Ohio) both claimed their budgets, heavy on the spending cuts, would pave the way for job growth in their states, as Think Progress notes.
Yet according to research performed by Think Progress, it seems states that cut the most funding lost the most jobs. And according to the site, in fact, the country is split pretty evenly between the 24 states that cut spending between 2007 and 2010, and the 25 that expanded government outlays.
On average, states that increased spending performed significantly better than cost-cutting states, with their unemployment rates actually dropping by 0.2 percent (as opposed to 1 percent increase in cost-cutting states), private-sector employment increasing by 1.4 percent (as opposed to a 2.1 percent loss) and 0.5 percent “real economic growth” since the start of the recession (as compared to a 2.9 percent economic contraction relative to the national economic trend).
Says Think Progress:
This graph shows that state spending is not just about jobs for public service workers, but also has far reaching consequences for private businesses and their workers… States that cut spending are seeing significantly more job losses in the private sector than states maintaining or increasing spending levels. For every 10 percent cut in state spending, state economies lost 1.6 percent of their private-sector jobs.
A fairly insignificant tax increase, but Christie says he’ll veto it:
TRENTON — In a vote along partisan lines, the Senate Budget Committee tonight approved a two-year income tax increase on New Jersey’s 16,000 millionaires.
Democrats say the surcharge will generate more than $500 million in additional revenue that will go largely to suburban school districts. Gov. Chris Christie has vowed to veto the tax.
[...] Senate Republicans said the tax would drive capital investment out of the state and decried the move as political.
So the leaders of a bunch of civic, policy and religious organizations — you know, the ones no one in the White House pays attention to because they’re a bunch of do-gooder whiners and they’ll have to vote for Democrats, anyway — are asking the administration and Congressional leaders to please stop hurting poor people with their budget cuts:
Washington, D.C. –– At a critical juncture in the deficit reduction talks, the leaders of prominent national religious, civil rights, charitable, economic research, and low-income advocacy organizations are calling on Executive and Congressional leadership to honor the precedent set by previous deficit reduction negotiations that have reduced the deficit without increasing poverty.
In a letter to policymakers involved in deficit reduction talks, these groups noted the precedent of bipartisan budgets that reduce both poverty and the deficit, stating:
“…all deficit reduction packages enacted in the 1990s reduced poverty and helped the disadvantaged even as they shrank deficits. In addition, every automatic budget cut mechanism of the past quarter-century has exempted core low-income assistance programs from any automatic across-the-board cuts triggered when budget targets or fiscal restraint rules were missed or violated. The 1985 and 1987 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings laws, the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act, the 1993 deficit reduction package, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and the 2010 pay-as-you-go law all exempted core low-income programs from automatic cuts.”
Now where did they get that idea? From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a look at the administration’s proposal to cut Medicaid funding in order to appease the imaginary deficit gods:
An Obama Administration proposal that’s on the table for budget negotiators would reduce federal Medicaid expenditures by reducing the federal share of Medicaid and CHIP costs, shifting costs to states and likely prompting states to cut payments to health care providers and to scale back the health services that Medicaid covers for low-income children, parents, people with disabilities, and/or senior citizens (including those in nursing homes).
Reductions in provider payments would likely exacerbate the problem that Medicaid beneficiaries already face regarding access to physician care, particularly from specialists.
The proposal would replace the various matching rates at which the federal government reimburses states for their costs in insuring people through Medicaid and CHIP with a single “blended rate” for each state. A state’s blended rate would be set at a level that provided the state with less federal funding than under current law, thereby saving the federal government money.
The blended-rate concept has two significant weaknesses.
First, it would essentially shift costs to states, rather than constrain them. The proposal produces little administrative-cost or other efficiency savings, as explained below. States, which face their own budget problems, likely would compensate for the reduction in federal funding by scaling back the services that Medicaid and CHIP (the Children’s Health Insurance Program) cover, cutting payment rates to health care providers, or both. Some Medicaid beneficiaries already have limited access to physician care, particularly from specialists, due largely to Medicaid’s already-low reimbursement rates. The shift in costs to states under the blended-rate proposal would make that problem worse.
In English, the administration is proposing spending changes that, while not bad in themselves, make it very likely that states will slash their Medicaid programs, probably by making it almost impossible to qualify and, if you do qualify, you’ll be covered for very little. While the White House may not be doing it directly, their decisions will make those state cuts inevitable.
Now, as I said when I interviewed former White House economist Jared Bernstein at Netroots Nation, if the White House economic policies are aimed at controlling the growth of health care costs, how will cutting Medicaid (the backbone of the Affordable Care Act) accomplish that? This is a colossal mess.
Not to mention, of course, all the people who will continue to die from inadequate care and whose families will make the not unreasonable conclusion that the acclaimed healthcare coverage legislation is now “business as usual” under a different name.
Them that’s got shall get, them that’s not shall lose…
“Don’t let the Republicans blackmail you again.” Bernie Sanders’ speech yesterday on the pending deficit agreement: