In a hyperpartsian era full of 5-4, "partisan line" Supreme Court decisions, it's incredibly important to recognize how different this was. It was not partisan, it was not narrow, it was not a "bombshell," and it doesn't fuel anything.
I've seen a lot of arguments come across my desk about different ways of dealing with illegal immigration in the US, many of which have been backed by simply bad information. In today's post we'll debunk a few myths so you can have your facts straight at your next illegal immigration debate.
We've had a few readers ask why Congress wanted to lower corporate tax rates in the US. In particular, US corporations already have record-setting profits--why do they need more money? Should we, instead, be raising taxes on corporations? Indeed, plenty of articles make the case that the corporate tax cuts won't create jobs at all.
The problem with these articles is that their counter-arguments are all arguing against the wrong argument. The logic behind a corporate tax cut is not in fact, "more corporate profits will mean more jobs."
The Senate tax reform bill that just passed has many changes, but one that took some flak was an apparent tax cut for private jet owners. As is often the case, the story is more complicated than it seems at first blush. All another reminder to be critical about what you read, no matter how you lean politically.
The Senate is working on their own version of a tax bill that would need to be reconciled with, or replace, the House is working on. We're going to look at what's in the Senate bill. We've seen a lot of oversimplification of this that seems to intentionally cherry-pick certain parts of it without looking at the whole picture.
Did you hear that the US declared war on North Korea? If you've been reading a lot of major news outlets, you'd have every reason to believe so. However the real story--with all the context--paints a very different picture.
There's a lot of disagreement among Americans about whether we need more or fewer immigrants, and what types will be most helpful. What do economic analyses say on the subject, and about the RAISE act?
Last week the Republicans tried three times to pass some sort of repeal to the ACA (Obamacare) along party lines. In our last podcast episode we talk about the complex forces and rules that caused these three attempts to fail.
Politically, this much failure is dangerous. Trump and the GOP are looking for a much-needed legislative win. Trump accused the GOP of being "total quitters" if they abandoned another repeal bill. But right now, they just don't have the votes.
So health reform is dead until someone gets a larger Senate majority, right?
Donald Trump is getting a quick lesson in the limitations of his office. As much as he’d like to will his policy proposals into existence, he is learning - as have all other presidents before him - how constrained his new position of power actually is.
Recently I saw a Facebook post that was starting to seriously make the rounds among my more politically inclined friends. It made the case that if the US were to switch over to a Single Payer system, it could pay for the entire thing with its current budget and also provide a $200B annual tax cut. Also nobody would pay for private health insurance. Sounds pretty great. Unfortunately it has zero citations so I decided to do the research. Is it anywhere close to accurate or totally full of it?
I was in Seattle recently (great city, fabulous, everyone says so), and while there a very nice and gregarious person was telling us about how excited she was for the $15 minimum wage. I knew almost nothing about it other than brief headlines on the news, so I listened but didn't add much.
But it was a good opportunity to then go do some research.
Trump withdrew from the Paris agreement in early June 2017. Not surprisingly, there was a big reaction. We were meeting with one of our ReConsider Cabinet members discussing the withdrawal the day it happened (as expected, great conversation). One thing we learned immediately hearing from her was that she had done much more research on the Paris Agreement and the withdrawal's implications than we had, so we did some research! You're welcome.