Progressive Breakfast: Greece’s Agonies, Europe’s Shame


MORNING MESSAGE

Robert Borosage

Greece’s Agonies, Europe’s Shame

The Greeks have been badly served by their oligarchs who avoid responsibility and taxes and by their governments that have been corrupt and incompetent. But this catastrophe is Europe’s failure. It is a failure, as economists from Paul Krugman to Milton Friedman argue, of design: a monetary union without a political union to provide unified fiscal policies. And it is a failure of ideology: a rigid insistence on austerity policies even after their failure has been acknowledged.

Greece Goes Over The Edge

Greece misses IMF payment. W. Post:“The $1.67 billion missed payment to the IMF was unlikely by itself to spur immediate problems for the global economy, since it affected only a government-backed institution, not private investors. But if Greece is ultimately forced off the euro, other troubled euro-zone economies such as Portugal could be seen as more vulnerable. The exit could also weaken the goal of ever-closer European integration.”

Tsipras extends olive branch. NYT:“…Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said Greece was ‘prepared to accept’ a deal set out publicly over the weekend by the creditors, with small modifications to some of the central points of contention on issues like pension cuts and tax increases. Mr. Tsipras linked Greece’s acceptance of the terms to a new package of bailout aid that would need to be negotiated.”

Germany PM Merkel says that offer now off the table. NYT:“‘With the expiration of the program, the basis for the offer has been removed,’ Ms. Merkel said.”

Poll shows Greeks will vote “No.” Bloomberg:“. The survey, in Efimerida ton Syntakton newspaper, showed 54 percent would vote ‘no’ — rejecting austerity in exchange for aid — and 33 percent would vote ‘yes’ — accepting austerity as the price of staying in the euro.”

Push To Secure Overtime Rule

EPI encourages public comments in support of Obama’s overtime rule:“The Department of Labor just proposed a plan to protect an estimated 5 million additional workers from overtime abuse. And now they need to hear from you.”

Overtime rule “only scratches the surface of the bigger problem” says NYT:“… the affluent have captured a rising share in recent decades, leaving the wages of everyone else to stagnate … there are two main approaches that promise to increase middle-class wages considerably. The first would be to improve the bargaining power of workers … The second type of policy change would be to limit the incomes of those nearest the top of the ladder…”

Unskilled labor seeing wage gains. Bloomberg:“Average hourly earnings in industries paying less than $12.50 an hour a year ago rose 3.2 percent in the 12 months through April, about 1 percentage point more than wage growth for the job market as a whole … It is being driven in part by state governments raising their minimum wages, and also through voluntary decisions by companies to raise employees’ pay.”

Scott Walker’s union busting hasn’t helped workers. The Atlantic’s Donald Kettl:“The $3 billion he saved in his first term was certainly something. But that amounted to less than 1 percent of overall state and local government spending over that time period. Those savings came from the pockets of teachers and other public servants who are also taxpayers and whose compensation, by most measures, was not out of line. The law Walker signed didn’t contribute to the fiscal health of the state’s public pension fund.”

The GOP Response To Same-Sex Marriage … CAP


By

GOP Candidates React to SCOTUS’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

Last Friday the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states, sparking a (nearly) nationwide celebration. Unsurprisingly, most GOP presidential candidates were not among those celebrating the Court’s decision. Instead, each candidate offered a disapproving comment, some more carefully crafted than others. From extremely nonplussed to apocalyptically apoplectic here’s a sample of their responses:

JEB BUSH:
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE DECISION: Oppose.
COMMENT: “I believe in traditional marriage…I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others”
HOW MAD: Holding it in.

MARCO RUBIO:
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE DECISION: Oppose.
COMMENT: “While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law”
HOW MAD: You mad, bro?

SCOTT WALKER:
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE DECISION: Oppose.
COMMENT: “This Supreme Court decision is a grave mistake.”
HOW MAD: Extremely nonplussed.

TED CRUZ:
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE DECISION: Oppose.
COMMENT: “Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.”
HOW MAD: Typical Ted.

BOBBY JINDAL:
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE DECISION: Oppose.
COMMENT: “Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.”
HOW MAD: Tanned. Rested. Ready to rage.

RICK PERRY:
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE DECISION: Oppose.
COMMENT: “I fundamentally disagree with the court rewriting the law and assaulting the 10th Amendment.”
HOW MAD: Fundamentally flustered.

RICK SANTORUM:
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE DECISION: Oppose.
COMMENT: “Just as they have in cases from Dred Scott to Plessy, the Court has an imperfect track record.”
HOW MAD: Pointing fingers.

MIKE HUCKABEE:
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE DECISION: Oppose.
COMMENT: “I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch.”
HOW MAD: Apocalyptically apoplectic.

BEN CARSON:
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE DECISION: Oppose.
COMMENT: “While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision, their ruling is now the law of the land.”
HOW MAD: The Doctor took a chill pill.

CARLY FIORINA:
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE DECISION: Oppose.
COMMENT: “The latest example of an activist Court ignoring its constitutional duty to say what the law is.”
HOW MAD: Choleric

LINDSEY GRAHAM:
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE DECISION: Support?
COMMENT: “I will respect the Court’s decision.”
HOW MAD: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

DONALD TRUMP:
SUPPORT OR OPPOSE DECISION: Oppose.
COMMENT: “The Bush appointed Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has let us down…Remember!”
HOW MAD: A confused tycoon tantrum.

Republican presidential candidates aside, the response to the Court’s decision was overwhelmingly positive. But while last week’s decision is a huge victory, and does much to end uncertainty for LGBT couples and families, there is still much work to be done. In a majority states, same-sex couples will be able to be legally married and legally fired from their jobs, evicted from their houses, denied credit, or refused service just because of their sexual orientation. Now it’s time to build on last week’s decision to pass nationwide, explicit LGBT discrimination protections.

BOTTOM LINE: No matter the source of their disapproval, almost every single candidate in the crowded GOP primary field came out against what a supermajority of Americans agree with last week. On issue after issue, GOP candidates’ extreme views are out-of-touch with the American people.

Close The Gap


By

Expanding Medicaid In Every State Is The Next Healthcare Challenge

Last week was a great week for healthcare in America. In its decision to uphold premium tax credits available in states with federally facilitated marketplaces, the Supreme Court sent a strong message: the ACA is here to stay. Now that major court challenges to the Affordable Care Act are in the past, it’s time to focus on improving existing aspects of the law like Medicaid expansion.

Medicaid expansion is a main pillar of the Affordable Care Act that increases Medicaid eligibility to cover individuals making up to 138 percent of the poverty level—or $27,724 a year for a family of three. Expanding Medicaid helps ensure that people who make too much to be eligible for traditional Medicaid but too little to afford insurance of their own aren’t left without coverage. But thanks to the ACA’s first Supreme Court saga, states are allowed to choose whether or not to accept federal funding to expand Medicaid. The result has been almost half of all governors refusing to expand Medicaid eligibility for political reasons leaving more than 4 million people uninsured.Not expanding Medicaid has costs both human and economic. If all 21 remaining states accepted Medicaid expansion 4.2 million residents would become newly insured. Moreover, conservative governors refusing Medicaid expansion are hurting their state’s economically. For every $1 a state spends to expand Medicaid $13.4 federal dollars will flow into the state helping hospitals deliver care and boosting state economic growth and employment.This afternoon the president visited Tennessee—where the legislature has rejected the Republican governor’s Medicaid expansion proposal—to speak about the future of the Affordable Care Act. During the town hall, the president said, “This is about people. This is not about politics. This is not about Washington.” It is time for conservative lawmakers to put people over politics and expand Medicaid.

BOTTOM LINE: The ACA is here to stay. It is time for conservatives to stop fighting against the law at the expense of millions of their constituents.

How Much Google Really Knows About You


Photo Credit: Screen capture

Update: Google has just consolidated a lot of these features into the new My Account area. It’s got a better user interface and lets you view and erase your history as well as change your security settings.

Google keeps tabs on a lot of data about you. How and when you surf, the search terms you use, the pages you visit (if you visit them while logged into your Google Account from a Chrome browser, an Android device, or by clicking on them in Google.) Google also makes demographic assumptions based on analysis of that data.

You could avoid the problem entirely by searching in “incognito” mode. It’s a good option if you know you’re going to surf something (ahem) objectionable. But chances are that you’ve already been searching along and giving Google plenty of data to mine. Some of it may be more helpful than others.

Don’t panic. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There is a certain Big Brother-ish notion to all this stuff Google “knows” about you, but most of it is pretty ordinary, right? The Internet is powered by advertising. Wouldn’t you rather have ads that are relevant and might save you money on something you actually would buy? When you’re searching for something, wouldn’t you rather Google remember the sorts of things you usually click on in order to offer you results that are more relevant?

You can view what Google knows and erase only the things that you don’t want Google to consider when serving up your ads. Here’s an example. What if someone mentioned a Justin Bieber song and you Google it.

Hey, you don’t even like Justin Beiber, but now the banner ads in half your favorite websites are showing nothing but Justin Bieber. Erase it!

First step: log into your Google account and go to history.google.com 

You should see something pretty similar to the screen capture I made of my history. No Justin Bieber here, but I did search for demotivational posters. Maybe I want to delete those.

 

Photo Credit: Screen capture

Once you review your Google history, you can remove anything you don’t want to sit around in your Google history causing embarrassing ads or new and exciting discoveries for your children to accidentally find in your search history.

Just check the box to the left of the item and then click on the remove button.

You could do the same thing by clearing your browser history and cookies, but that only works on the computer you’re using.

Clearing it from your Google history works for searches from any computer where you were logged into your Google account.

But wait, there’s more. You can go beyond just deleting your history. You can actually download it, too.

 

Photo Credit: Screen capture

 If you’d like, you can download your Google history. Click on the settings icon and then click download. You’ll get a gigantic warning.

Download a copy of your data

Please read this carefully, it’s not the usual yada yada.

Create an archive of your search history data. This archive will only be accessible to you. We will email you when the archive is ready to download from Google Drive. Learn more

Important information about your Google data archives

  • Do not download your archive on public computers and ensure your archive is always under your control; your archive contains sensitive data.
  • Protect your account and sensitive data with 2-Step Verification; helping keep bad guys out, even if they have your password.
  • If you have decided to take your data elsewhere, please research the data export policies of your destination. Otherwise, if you ever want to leave the service, you may have to leave your data behind.

Why such the big warning? Well, Google can make inferences about your gender, age, and shopping preferences, and so can anyone else with that data. If you’ve ever visited an embarrassing website or Googled something that could potentially be used against you, you may want to think carefully about how you store this data.

A Good Day For America … Cap


By

The Supreme Court Upheld The Affordable Care Act And The Fair Housing Act

It is a good day in America. This morning, in a ringing endorsement of the Affordable Care Act and the rule of law, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in King v. Burwell to uphold health care subsidies. The Court did not just uphold subsidies, it strongly defended the law, sending a message that serious legal threats to the case are over. Millions of people can rest easy, knowing they will still have access to quality, affordable health insurance.

Chief Justice Roberts penned the opinion, and in it he granted a sweeping victory for supporters of the law and a crushing blow to its conservative opponents. The opinion reads: “In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

What’s most noteworthy about the opinion is how it was written. The Court did not employ the Chevron doctrine, which calls for the justices to defer to the relevant agency if a statute is ambiguous. Instead, the Court resolved the ambiguity of the law itself ruling that the Chevron deference does not apply to questions of “deep economic and political significance.” Because the Court did not employ the Chevron doctrine, the next presidential administration will not be able to reinterpret the law to strip away tax subsidies. In other words, if Congressional Republicans want to gut the Affordable Care Act, they are going to have to do it themselves, without the help of the Court. That’s a big deal.

Justice Scalia wrote the dissent, expressing his distaste for the Affordable Care Act colorfully. With the majority opinion upholding the law, “words no longer have meaning,” wrote Scalia. “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

Justice Scalia, you can call it whatever you want. We will call it health care in America.

Because the Supreme Court did the right thing, the 16.4 million people that have gained insurance under the ACA can rest easy. The 8.7 million enrollees receiving tax credits do not have to worry about their insurance being made unaffordable. The 129 million people with pre-existing conditions no longer have to worry about losing coverage or facing significant premium increases. Women will not be discriminated against just for being women, and growth of health care costs can continue to slow.

While most of today’s attention has been on King v. Burwell, the Court ruled on another significant case this morning that should not be overlooked. In a surprising 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that housing policies could be deemed discriminatory based on “disparate impact.” In other words, discrimination can be proven by showing that the impact of a housing policy is discriminatory even if the discrimination was not intended. Even unintentional housing discrimination denies families access to the social, economic, and health benefits that come along with appropriate housing opportunities. And today, the Court recognized decades of long-standing precendent in ensuring the survival of an important tool to combat discrimination. For more details about this case, read this explanation from ThinkProgress.

BOTTOM LINE: After much wasted time and energy, the Supreme Court has rejected the second partisan attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act and helped solidify the future of health care in America. And with the fair housing ruling, the Court saved an important statute and acknowledged the ongoing fight to end discrimination. While both of these landmark decisions were fantastic, we should also remember something else: a more reasonable court may not have accepted them in the first place.