I haven't mentioned it for a while, I don't think, but I do still believe the war in Syria matters, so I'll go with that this time.
For something that doesn't matter...not sure. I did write two Ignore Those Polls! posts this week (ACA and scandals), so I'll go with that, I suppose.
That doesn't seem like a very good job, so I hope y'all have better: what do you have? What do you think mattered this week?
Student loans matter, in that the subject has been brought up and people are talking about addressing it.ReplyDelete
The more that mainstream columnists, talk shows and cartoonists bring up the lack of policy ideas on the Republican side, the better.
I'd say Lamar Alexander's stepping to the fore of climate change matters.ReplyDelete
McCain's trip Syria didn't matter, but did point out what a ridiculous position he's taken on foreign policy. The potential that he took a photo with suspected kidnapper bad guys only twists the knife further.
The recession of Scandal Mania matters because it seems pretty clear that the media (unless you consider Bill O's guesswork) never found anything linking the White House.
Agree that loans matter, NPR and Planet Money have really been hammering the point home that college kids are heading into the job market with exorbitant debt. Not sure how corporate America gets zero interest loans from the Fed and we are gouging students, but that's the wonder of crony capitalism.
Also, the nomination process picking up steam, absolutely matters. Grab the popcorn because the battle of wills between Mitch and Harry is going to be the best septuagenerian battle royale ever.
Also the large amount of applications from private insurers to join the federal exchange matters.
Also Holder looks like he's going to avoid getting canned for now, which matters if you don't want to see the Justice dept. get as politicized as it was under Alberto Gonzalez.Delete
These demonstrations in Turkey look like they might matter.ReplyDelete
Keynesians start to get a clue:ReplyDelete
"Meanwhile, the direct evidence that tighter fiscal policy is damaging growth is scarce, so far at least; study the internal details of major economic reports, and even if you squint you don't see a lot of concrete evidence of the squeeze."
For some context:
Austerity? HAHAHA. We haven't had any austerity, so of course it hasn't caused a drag on the US economy. If we had the kind of cuts Ron and Rand Paul suggested, then we'd have austerity.Delete
The sequester, despite what Dems say, isn't austerity. Spending is pretty much level, just a bit higher.
Sure, but Keynesians refer to the USG not raising spending enough that GDP maintain its pre-crash growth path as "austerity." No, really, this is not a joke.Delete
With the sequester, Krugman was predicting rivers and seas boiling (just as he did when Bush got his tax cut) so some in his camp are feeling a little queasy as the metrics they claim are important misbehave.
One thing that keeps getting left out of these is the continual wrangling of over the Medicaid expansion, particularly in the states where the legislature is at odds with the governor (most spectacularly in Arizona, but also in Maine, New Hampshire, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Florida).ReplyDelete
Can't see how this one matters. There is no deadline, and once attention is elsewhere everyone will fall into line and expand.Delete
As a purely political issue, I suppose it has very minor wedge-issue potential, but that's very different from "mattering".
Even assuming everyone expands eventually and in the near future (which isn't a sure thing; Arizona didn't participate in the original program until 1982), that's still time spent where a significant population don't have access to health care. That definitely matters for the people who aren't getting insurance, for the proper functioning of the program, and for how health care issues are approached in future.Delete
Not that it "mattered," but I enjoyed JB's article over at Salon:ReplyDelete
I agree. My dad and I have been debating who the Republicans are going to put up in '16. He says Rudio and I say Cruz. JB's article nicely underlines why I think that Cruz is the one to beat.
As a Democrat, I will personally donate to Cruz's primary campaign if I think that he has a chance at getting the nom. Rat-fucking galore.Delete
But if Cruz gets the nomination, and the fundamentals favor the Republicans in '16, then Cruz will likely be elected President.Delete
If the fundamentals favor the Republicans, hopefully there will be some better candidates running. Romney wasn't facing any stiff competition.Delete