Directing public money to private organizations to look after the common good is a story as old as the American republic, and a practice inherited from colonial times.
The conventional wisdom on the establishment left is that Sen. Bernie Sanders is offering his enthusiastic supporters pipedreams in lieu of achievable policy proposals. Placed in proper perspective, Bernie Sanders may be just one justice away from setting in motion what he calls a political "revolution."
In a country with a Constitution beginning with the words, "We the People," should our economy work for all of us instead of just a few of us? You would think it should work for We the People, but example after example shows how it is actually rigged to work for only a few people.
The challenges of polling Latino voters have received less attention in 2014, because there are fewer competitive states and districts this cycles where Latinos are positioned to be influential. A notable exception is Colorado.
On Monday of this past week, the Pew Research Center released the results of a poll taken earlier this month about religion, with this heading, "Public Sees Religion's Influence Waning." The survey addressed a wide range of religious topics relating to life in America.
Lindsey Graham's recent warning that Republicans might yet push for a presidential impeachment serves to demonstrate, if further demonstration was still required, just how brutal Washington politics could get if his party ends up in control of both Houses of Congress after the mid-term elections in November.
Rather than debate over whether Kristof wants to engage in a blame-game against professors or if he simply misses the material conditions of social change to which all of us -- professors included -- are subject, I'd like to take on some of his premises that did strike me as blatantly wrong-headed.
Even if Obamacare does help a lot of people, my question is: at what political cost and at what long-term cost to effective social insurance? Both the conception and the roll out of The Affordable Care Act will set back the effort of liberal Democrats to persuade regular people that government can be a force for the broad public good (Social Security has no such problems). The ACA is the social-policy equivalent of the Pentagon's apocryphal $800 hammer. Even with a great deal of catch-up and good luck, it will take a miracle for Obamacare not to be a net loser for Democrats in the 2014 mid-term elections.
We want a public option. We need a public option. And that public option already exists -- we just need to open it up, to all Americans.
Big Pharma has a new tool to make turbo-charged profits and insulate itself from efforts to rein in skyrocketing health costs.
Ladies and gentlemen, one cannot provide true reform, change we can believe in, or dramatically improved health care with bills that are insurance industry productions, passed with political payoffs, compromising our highest ideals.
The more complex a system is, the more it is at risk of failing in complex ways that were not anticipated by its architects. It would be hard to imagine a more complicated way of expanding health coverage than the Affordable Care Act.I say that, appreciating that Obamacare will eventually bring health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured people, that it will end the cruelty of denials of coverage based on "pre-existing conditions" (we all have the pre-existing condition of mortality); that it will allow young adults to stay on their parents' insurance to age 26; and that it will require free preventive care under all insurance plans. But there was a much simpler way of achieving this.
When the great actor Matt Damon recently said that President Obama "broke up with me," he hit the jackpot of telling political truth in the eyes of many progressive Democrats and independents.
Let's put the public search for affection back in its place -- i.e. in public space. There are great people all around you. You just have to reach out to them and connect. You bring yourself out in public. I'll provide the hotspot. And the chutzpah.
Arguments against reasonable, limited gun control are not based on empirical positions but on subjective gut-feelings. The reasons offered to oppose gun control are emotional responses meant to divert the argument from the evidence.
While there are reported concerns over government-approved, multi-state plans, the benefits certainly appear to outweigh them.