Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Pence Makes Deciding Vote Allowing States to Defund Planned Parenthood

Second time Pence has cast the deciding vote in the Senate. Last VP to do so was Cheney in 2008.

VP Pence has made it no secret he is opposed to allowing women the right to decide on having an abortions. While in Congress, Pence sponsored the first bill to defund Planned Parenthood in 2007 and when it did not pass then he continued the effort until it did pass in the House in 2011.

More recently a Federal Court blocked a bill signed by then Indiana Governor Pence forcing women to have a funeral for the aborted fetus which would then go through a burial or cremation. The cost of the burial or cremation would have increased the cost of the abortion dramatically in Indiana. The court ruled Pence’s law would have blocked a woman’s right to choose.

If you remember VP Pence had used his tie breaker vote to approve Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. Today, VP Pence was again called upon to break a Senate tie involving the right of states to defund Planned Parenthood.

The Department of Health and Human Services under President Obama ruled organizations providing family planning and preventive health care services could not be barred by states from receiving Title X grant dollars for any reason other than those related to their “ability to deliver services to program beneficiaries in an effective manner.” It required states and local governments to distribute federal Title X funding for services related to contraception, fertility, pregnancy care and cervical cancer screenings to health providers without regard for whether those facilities also performed abortions outside of Title X. Title X funding covers services such as contraception, STD screenings, treatments and can not be used to pay for abortion services.

Weighing in after the tie-breaking vote to overrule President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services, Senate Majority Leader McConnell had this to say:

“It was the Obama administration’s move that hurt ‘local communities’ by substituting Washington’s judgment for the needs of real people. This regulation is an unnecessary restriction on states that know their residents a lot better than the federal government.”

Not sure what needs McConnell’s real-people would have to block a woman’s decision to have an abortion which is not taken lightly by a woman and using it as an excuse to defund Planned Parenthood. It appears McConnell, Pence, and the Republicans are practicing a tyranny of a majority to disregard the rights of an individual in favor of their own views.

Tags: Comments (42) | |

Crazification Factor Smashed

Kung Fu Monkey has a sad. Paul Ryan has totally crushed his crazification factor

h/t Kerry Eleveld

This issue has made Paul Ryan into the most unpopular politician in the country. At the start of the Trump administration he had a 33% approval rating, with 43% of voters disapproving of him. Now his approval has plunged to 21%, with his disapproval spiking all the way up to 61%.

I count this as a new event, because Ryan is very famous and 82% is respectably close to 100 %

But mostly, because I want to post this here

blue-eyesA

blue-eyesB

Comments (4) | |

Question; Have you Experienced the Same?

I was reading an article on one of the other blogs as written by an economist. In his article he discussed the 0.18% of total expenditures on one category. Then the blogger went on to describe the total expenditure as not being “18%, but rather a little less than one-fifth of 1 percent.” I asked the economist about the why of the additional explanation and whether this would be a legitimate fear that people might mistake 0.18% as being 18% and not less than 2 tenths of 1%. The answer was “yes,” he did not want the total expenditures in this category to be mistook as 18% as it was important. He went to greater length to explain it. He had experienced errors by others in misinterpreting a portion of a 1 percent as something greater than 1%.

Have you experienced the same innumeracy amongst others?

Tags: Comments (33) | |

Working class and Dems

by Peter Dorman   (originally published at Econospeak)

The Intersectionality that Dare Not Speak Its Name

The New York Times ran a Nate Cohn piece today that epitomizes the way conventional liberals spin American politics.  On the one hand we have the turnout and voting preferences of people of color—blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans.  On the other we have whites and, in particular, the white working class.  Not much happened in the 2016 presidential election on the POC side, says Cohn; nearly all the movement was among working class whites.
I suppose it’s good that political discourse can now acknowledge the presence of a working class, at least where white people are concerned.  Wouldn’t it be nice if they allowed people of other hues to be workers too?

Seriously, what’s the basis for dichotomizing the political terrain into race versus class?  Why not examine not just white workers, but workers?
The issue is not simply how many nonwhite workers switched their vote to Trump or waited out the election altogether.  The starting point should be that Trump ran the most openly racist presidential campaign since George Wallace, and this should have cost him big time among all the groups he disparaged—but it didn’t.  So let’s do a class breakdown for nonwhite voters the way it’s now becoming fashionable to do for whites.  How did Clinton do with working class black and Hispanic voters compared to more affluent POC?  How does adding the nonwhite slices of the electorate change how we assess the role of the working class as a whole in electing Trump, if at all?

The working class is multiracial, and it is also a working class.  There’s nothing either/or about it.

Comments (17) | |

Employment in coal mining

Trump is claiming he can restore coal mining to its former glory by reversing the new regulations that Obama enacted.

 

Obvious he has no idea what the history of employment in coal mining is.

Just note that it peaked in 1923.

 

Update: Today the NY Times had a very good article on coal and jobs: “Coal Mining Jobs Trump Would Bring Back No Longer Exist

COALMINING

Tags: Comments (8) | |

The 27% Crazification Factor Again

New link from Steve Bennen at Eschaton reminds us of Robert Waldmann’s post from 2014:

The 27% Crazification Factor Again

Robert Waldmann | January 27, 2014

It’s that number again. As noted by Dylan Scott at TPM, according to the latest Pew poll 27% of US adults think that the Republican party “is more willing to work with the other party” than the Democratic party.For earlier appearances of 27% see Kung Fu Monkey

John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is –Tyrone: 27%.John: … you said that immmediately, and with some authority.Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That’s crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.

Comments (1) | |

Blinded by the Right — Literally

Patrick Ruffini tweeted a graph showing a break in the trend of health care cost inflation with the ironic comment “The “Affordable” Care Act sure has bent the cost curve.” In the graph he posted, it is broken not bent.

ruffini2

h/t @ChrisDeLong_

The trick is that the graph starts in 1996 & includes college tuition and software, so the huge change looks tiny.

In comments, it is clear that other people can’t see what is right in front of their eyes (good thing the ACA covers eye exams).

Jon Chait helps out by graphing inflation not the price level and leaving out other goods and services with huge changes.

chaitonruffini

I just asked Fred. I look at the ratio of health care PCE chained indes to the overall PCE deflator. Chait shows a huge decline in overall inflation, which isn’t relevant. Here is an (admittedly annual graph) which sure looks bent to me

fredonruffini

Ideology prevents people from seeing what’s right in front of their eyes.

Comments (4) | |

How Much Crime Do Illegal Immigrants Commit?

You probably never heard of SCAAP, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.  But I expect it will be showing up in the news a lot pretty soon.

This is what it does:

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, administers SCAAP, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). SCAAP provides federal payments to states and localities that incurred correctional officer salary costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law, and who are incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days during the reporting period.

Translation: state and local jurisdictions are compensated by the Federal Government for expenses incurred for holding criminal aliens. Why do the Feds pay? To quote from a letter signed by California’s Congressional delegation to key members of the House Appropriations Committee a few years ago:

As you know, SCAAP is a grant program that reimburses states and local governments for the cost of incarcerating undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes. By law, the federal government is ultimately responsible for immigration enforcement, including the incarceration of undocumented criminal offenders. When this is not possible, the law requires the federal government to compensate state and local governments for their incarceration costs.

So… the Federal Government is responsible for immigration enforcement, which is to say (in this context), preventing illegal immigration. Therefore, if a non-immigration related crime is committed by someone the Feds failed to keep out of the country, the Feds compensates state and local law enforcement.

The number of prisoners for which the SCAAP program provides compensation are hard to find. It is almost as if those figures are kept deliberately opaque. However, according to the General Accounting Office:

The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico.

The same GAO document tells us that there were about 10.8 million aliens with undocumented status in the US in 2009. 296,000 is 2.74% of 10.8 million, so about 2.74% of the aliens with undocumented status were incarcerated in the state prison system and local jails that year.

How does that compare to the population at large? According to Appendix Table 2 of this Bureau of Justice Statistics report, in 2009, the state prison population was 1,319,426 and the local jail population was 767,620 for a total of 2,087,046.

The US non-institutional population at the time was about 301,500,000, so add in the 2 million for state and local prisoners, and add in about 205K Federal prisoners, and you have a US population of about 303,705,000.

2 million and change divided by 303.7 million comes to less than 7 tenths of a percent of the US population ending up in state and local prisons. That is well under the 2.7% for the undocumented aliens. Or…illegal immigrants are around four times more likely to be imprisoned in a state or local jurisdiction than the population as a whole. (Note that this ratio is probably even more lopsided since SCAAP only applies to aliens with at least four consecutive days of time served.)

Now, illegal immigrants having 4x everyone else’s crime rate is a far cry from the often repeated claim that “illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the native born.” Thoroughly contradicting popular wisdom makes for an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So let’s see if we can find some additional support for the claim.

As luck would have, it isn’t just state and local jurisdictions that imprison people. The Federal government does it too. The 2015 US Sentencing Commission Report states that:

A majority of federal offenders are United States citizens (58.5%). Most non-citizen offenders committed an immigration offense (66.0%).

So let’s assume that those who committed an immigration offense are innocent of any other offense, and disregard them completely.

Endnote 13 of the same document tells us:

Non-citizens primarily are convicted of immigration crimes. Non-citizens were the offenders in only 14.1 percent of all other federal crimes in fiscal year 2015.

According to Pew Research undocumented aliens accounted for about 3.5% of the total population in 2015.

So 3.5% of the population represents 14.1% of Federal prisoners incarcerated for non-immigration related crimes. That is to say, illegal immigrants were four times as likely to be in a Federal prison for a non-immigration related crime as the rest of the population in 2015, which is about the same proportion we see in state and local jurisdictions in 2009. Coincidence?

You don’t have to like something for it to be true. But the relative crime rates of the illegal population are what they are. Now perhaps you don’t think crime rates matter to the illegal immigration debate. Fine. That’s a topic for another day.

What I think is more topical, though, is that sooner or later the Trump administration is going to figure out that SCAAP exists, that it is part of the Federal Budget, and that it can be used as a cudgel against the sanctuary movement. And frankly, stopped clocks being right twice a day and all, they will have a point when they do so.

Demanding compensation from the Feds’ for their failure to enforce a law while simultaneously preventing the Feds from doing so seems very squirrelly. I am no attorney, but it seems like the sort of argument even the team Trump has put together might be able to win in court.

Corrections (May 29, 6:45 AM PST)

1. Reader Longtooth notes that the GAO link mentioned in the post is severed. This one works as of this writing.
2. Reader Longtooth also notes that I missed something in that document – not all criminal aliens are in the SCAAP program. For more detail, see the comments, but, about two-thirds of the criminal aliens are either known to be in this country illegally, or “unknown.” The latter group is believed by the states to be in this country illegally, and eligible for SCAAP funding. As far as I can tell, they are essentially aliens who cannot be shown to be in the country legally but have not, at the time they were arrested, come to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security. I think this needs a further look, but based on various statements in the GAO report, I now believe that illegal aliens are not 4X more likely to end up in state and local jails, but rather somewhere between a bit more than one and a bit less than 3 times more likely.

Leaving aside the question of crime rates among the undocumented, there is the issue that the SCAAP program deal involves taxpayer dollars. This information should be readily available, whether from the Justice Department or the General Accounting Office.

Tags: , , Comments (74) | |