Archive

  • Why There Are No Easy Answers to the Latest Border Dilemma

    AP Photo/Eric Gay
    After the 2012 election, Republicans realized that if they were going to have any chance of winning back the White House, they'd have to stanch their electoral bleeding among Hispanic voters, and several high-profile GOP politicians suggested that passing comprehensive immigration reform was a necessary (if perhaps not sufficient) step toward doing so. Nothing happened, of course, because House Republicans have little interest in seeing comprehensive reform. So we entered a sort of holding pattern, in which Democrats criticize Republicans for their unwillingness to act on legislation, and Republicans try to argue that their refusal is really Barack Obama's fault. First they said they couldn't pass reform until Obama "secured the border" (more on that in a moment) and then they said they couldn't pass reform because Obama is so lawless and tyrannical that they didn't trust him to enforce whatever they passed. All that was fine as long as the problems of the immigration system remained...
  • Why Your Employer Can't Cut Off Your Contraception Coverage

    Flickr/Sarah C
    On the Fourth of July, while you were stuffing your face with patriotic burgers and watching patriotic fireworks, the Supreme Court handed down an emergency injunction in a case involving Wheaton College's objection to the Affordable Care Act's contraception benefit, a decision that acted as an addendum to the Hobby Lobby decision. As I ranted over here , this is the decision that could really open the floodgates to thousands of claims from all kinds of organizations and companies that don't want to let their employees get contraception. But after thinking and reading about it for a while, there's something I think everyone seems to be missing, and it could mean that no one is actually going to lose their coverage, even temporarily. I should say that it's entirely possible that I'm completely wrong about this, and there's some bureaucratic detail deep within the ACA that I've overlooked. But the first thing to remember is that the ACA requires that insurance plans cover a variety of...
  • Can 'Reformicons' Save the Republican Party?

    AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
    New York Times Cover of the July 6, 2014, New York Times Magazine T he conservative reformers are about to have their moment—or so it would appear, if you're a reader of some publications predominantly read by liberals. A small band of thoughtful conservatives has been saying, for some time, that if the Republican party is going to survive—and, more specifically, win a presidential election in the next decade or two—it has to change. It has to get serious about policy again, grapple with contemporary economic and social realities that simple appeals to free markets and small government don't address, and find a way to attract voters from outside the demographic of old white people. This weekend, the "reformicons," as E.J. Dionne dubbed them in a recent essay in Democracy , were the subject of a cover article by Sam Tanenhaus in the New York Times Magazine. (If you want to learn who they are, read Tanenhaus' piece; if you want to learn about their ideas, read Dionne's.) The natural...
  • Searching for the Next Great Conservative Novel

    Lots of room on this shelf. (Flickr/Luis Guillermo Pineda Rodas)
    Conservatives often complain that the machinery of entertainment and popular culture is controlled by liberals, which is basically true. So periodically, one of them tries to encourage the rest to get behind a project to produce a right-wing culture, to get conservative ideas into the collective consciousness in more subtle and lasting ways than another "Why Liberals Are Destroying America" book from Ann Coulter or Brent Bozell. The latest of these pleas is an essay by publisher Adam Bellow in the National Review , which has the distinction of offering fiction, in the form of books(!), as the most important means of doing so. While the essay is overwrought at many points and self-contradictory at others (he says of the left, "Political power eludes them," then later laments their "decades-long march through the institutions of government, academia, and popular culture"), Bellow makes some interesting points even as, I think, he shows why this is such an uphill climb for his...
  • Who Supports the Hobby Lobby Decision? Old People, That's Who

    Flickr/+mara
    Yesterday, in a post about the political implications of the Hobby Lobby case, I said: "Though I haven't seen any poll that released breakouts by demographics, I'll bet that the populations that support this decision are the ones firmly in the Republican camp already, particularly older white evangelicals." As someone helpfully alerted me on Twitter, there is such a poll, from the Kaiser Family Foundation , taken in April. And while they didn't ask about religious affiliation, it turns out that age shows the starkest differences other than party identification in how people view the contraception issue. Let's look at some numbers, then we'll discuss what they might mean. Kaiser asked the question two ways: first in a simple way, and then by giving a bit more information about each side's perspective. The first question was, "In general, do you support or oppose the health care law's requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control?" When presented...
  • 15 Major Decisions This Year From a Partisan Supreme Court

    AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
    AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais Kristin Hughs, right, announces to supporters the Supreme Court's decision on the Hobby Lobby case in Washington, Monday, June 30, 2014. The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women. S ince Monday's dramatic Supreme Court decisions, I've seen a few people recall that back in 2000, a lot of liberals justified voting for Ralph Nader (or not voting at all) on the basis that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Bush appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the high court, and it's safe to say that Gore's nominees would have been somewhat different, so it's unlikely we'll be hearing that argument again. Wherever you place your priorities in terms of the actions of the executive branch, at this point in history, the nominating of Supreme Court justices has become extremely partisan, in a way...
  • 5 Ways Wall Street Continues to Sandbag the Economy, and How to Fix It

    Flickr/Alex E. Proimos
    Flickr/Alex E. Proimos This article originally appeared at The Huffington Post . The shocking thing about the financial collapse of 2008 is not that Wall Street excesses pushed us into the worst economy crisis since the Depression. It's that the same financial system has been propped back up and that elites are getting richer than ever, while the effects of that collapse are continuing to sandbag the rest of the economy. Oh, and most of this aftermath happened while a Democrat was in the White House. Consider: The biggest banks are bigger and more concentrated than ever. Subprime (subprime!) is making a comeback with interest rates of 8 to 13 percent. Despite Michael Lewis's devastating expose of how high speed trading is nothing but a technological scam that allows insiders to profit at the expense of small investors, regulators are not moving to abolish it . The usual suspects are declaring the housing crisis over, even though default and foreclosure rates in the hardest hit cities...
  • Watch Paul Waldman on Washington Journal

    C-SPAN
    The American Prospect 's contributing editor appeared on the June 29, 2014 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal .
  • Listen to Harold Meyerson Analyze the Supreme Court's Big Anti-Union Decision on 'To the Point'

    Shutterstock
    Harold Meyerson, The American Prospect 's editor at large, appeared on the June 30th edition of Public Radio International's To the Point , analyzing the Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Quinn , which allows home health-care workers in Illinois to opt out of paying their union dues. Listen here . Read Meyerson's essay on the Harris case here: Supreme Court Rules Disadvantaged Workers Should Be Disadvantaged Some More
  • Supreme Court Rules Disadvantaged Workers Should Be Disadvantaged Some More

    DVA.gov
    DVA.gov The United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. T he conservative majority on the Supreme Court today took up the case of some of America’s most disadvantaged workers, and ruled that they should be disadvantaged some more. The five-to-four ruling in Harris v. Quinn goes a long way to crippling the efforts that unions have made to help these workers get out of poverty. The case concerned some 28,000 home care aides in Illinois whose paychecks come from Medicaid. Before the state agreed in 2003 that they could form a union, they made the minimum wage. (It’s the state that sets their wage rate, since their pay comes entirely from Medicaid.) Currently, as a result of their union contract, they make $11.85 an hour rather than the minimum of $7.25. Tomorrow, by the terms of their contract, their hourly rate is raised to $12.25, and on December 1 st to $13. The right to hire and fire these workers remains solely, of course, that of their home-bound patients and their...

Pages