Skip to main content

Economics Daily Digest by the Roosevelt Institute banner

By Rachel Goldfarb, originally published on Next New Deal

Click here to receive the Daily Digest via email.

Independent Conservatives Growing (The Kudlow Report)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren says the GOP must consider independents' views during the primary process. Otherwise, Tea Party primary challenges against moderate incumbents will result in general election candidates whom independents will never support.

Change in the Air (Harper's Magazine)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and Director of the Bernard L. Schwartz Rediscovering Government Initiative Jeff Madrick writes about the shift in Democratic politics that led to the election of progressives like New York City's new mayor, Bill de Blasio. He considers this proof that voters are paying attention to how long many elected officials have ignored rising inequality. This article is behind a paywall.

The Sunday Show with Philip Maldari (KPFA)

Jeff Madrick discusses the rise of inequality in the U.S., with a focus on the data. He touches on unemployment, individual and household wages, part-time work, increased productivity without increased wages, and more.

Back to the Digital Drawing Board (NYT)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford argues that the circuit court ruling that eliminated the Federal Communications Commission's existing net neutrality rules offers an opportunity to declare the Internet a "common carrier," which would require equal service for all.

Class Divide on Campus: Adjunct Professors Fight for Better Pay, Benefits (NBC News)

Former Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow Nona Willis Aronowitz looks at the struggle of adjunct professors, who are paid poverty wages for jobs that require advanced degrees, and how their tenured peers have or have not been supportive of their push for changes.

Deficit Scolds Are Holding the Unemployed Hostage (NY Mag)

Jonathan Chait writes that by insisting that short-term stimulus, like extending unemployment insurance, absolutely must be offset by deficit reduction, the deficit scolds are doing far more to support gridlock than to create the political changes they want.

A Housing Relief Program with Policies That 'throw people into the grinder' (The Guardian)

David Dayen reports on the failure of one of the biggest housing relief programs in the country, Hardest-Hit, which was created in 2010 to provide foreclosure relief. The program's poor implementation has caused serious problems for homeowners seeking help.

Wall Street Group Aggressively Lobbied a Federal Agency to Thwart Eminent Domain Plans (The Nation)

Alexis Goldstein reports that Wall Street directly lobbied a key staffer at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which has since threatened legal action against localities that attempt to use eminent domain to rescue underwater homeowners.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Economics on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 09:30 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'd rephrase that. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, Odysseus, StrayCat

    Both major parties are a piece of work.

  •  Independents are no longer what they (0+ / 0-)

    used to be.  A large number of tea partiers have moved into the "Independent" column, because they can't stomach the national GOP.  As such, whatever it is the group "Independents"  state to pollsters needs to be understood with that in mind.   Generally speaking, Indies are more conservative than they were, say, 8 years ago because a large tea party contingent has since "spoiled the broth."  

    •  Gee, what did independents used to be that (0+ / 0-)

      we aren't now.

      Having been independent for the last 34 years ( I was a Democrat before that), I don't feel any different today than I was ten years ago or twenty or thirty.

      Independents are exactly what we have always been: not tied to any party.  Our mix changes as the parties rise and fall, but that's to be expected.

      And oh -- "spoiled the broth"? Really? You think independent people who go about living their own lives are somehow "spoiled" because a few others decide to call themselves something different?

      Ridiculous.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 08:21:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You simply don't get it (0+ / 0-)

        Independents are generally seen and portrayed by the media as "in the middle", almost synonymous to "moderates."   When a huge number of extreme far right wingers decides to shun the GOP because they are not, on the whole, extreme right-wing enough for them, it moves the group of "Independents" way to the right, at least for polling purposes.   If, say, in a polling question "Independents" claim to be opposed to abortion for any reason, that would be so because the extreme right wing tea partiers have moved the "Independents" as a polling entity way to the right.    Whatever YOUR reason for being an "Independent" is has nothing to do with my overall point, which you obviously did not grasp in the slightest.  

        •  I don't get it? You're the one who depends on your (0+ / 0-)

          own odd interpretation of what constitutes an independent.  Not to mention awfully full of yourself for no good reason.

          I don't know how much math you've had, but you seem unfamiliar with the idea of statistics.

          Independents will tend to fall somewhere in between extreme positions in polling because independents are all over the map. You get some communists and libertarians and would-be Democrats except for 1 or 2 issues and would-be Republicans except for 1 or 2 issues (or, these days, a bunch of idiots running the shows), some would-be Greens and who knows what else.  You could have a bunch of passionate radical people, but the mix would still look somewhere in the neighborhood of moderate.

          Something you obviously don't grasp in the slightest.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 05:55:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You attack me strongly for a stated opinion (0+ / 0-)

            on the current right-wing state of the general voting group "Independents" and you claim that it is me who is full of myself?  That is beyond rich.

              If you don't see that the huge influx of far-right extremist tea party Republicans into the group "Independents" has caused a noticeable  shift of that group to the right ("somewhere in the neighborhood of moderate" my foot) then that is your prerogative.  As is mine to consider your overly defensive posture in regards to a stated opinion about today's  "Independent" voters as outdated and wrong.

            To wit:

            Many articles point to the right-ward shift of the "Independent" voting block:

            http://www.politico.com/...

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

            You ARE correct that the "Independent" voting block is USED TO BE a hodgepodge of every conceivable POV, made up of across-the-board ideas and principles, and it then kind of resulted in a somewhat "moderate" overall position "back in the day," but when a very large (and of utmost importance: extreme right-wing ideologically) contingent of the GOP abandoned their base party for not being extreme "conservative" enough (fiscally or socially,)  and joined the group "Independents" you had a seismic shift that saw that typically "moderate" block go to the right.  

            As a result, the average "Independent" voter is no longer synonymous with "moderate" but has clearly moved into GOP territory (the huge influx of extremist tea party Republicans into the group is only partly outweighed by the more moderate views of the rest of that group.)   Obvious proof is the 2012 election, an election in which Mitt Romney got run over by a Mack truck to the tune of losing the EV 332 to 206 and the popular vote by 4%.  Yet, Romney managed to perform particularly well with "Independent" voters, where he won the "Independents" in almost every single swing state (except for one.)       That is obviously due to the fact that the large contingent of tea party right-wingers that calls themselves "Independents" these days came out not in support of Romney in particular (tea partiers didn't really care for Romney that much) but to cast their vote against Obama, come hell or high water.

            http://www.usnews.com/...

            http://thehill.com/...

            http://www.slate.com/...

            There is an obvious reason Romney WON the Independent vote by a whopping 5%, a net swing of the Independent vote of 6% compared to George W. Bush's showing with that group (W lost Independents by 1%) while he got his fanny whipped by almost all other groups.

              Also, note that there was a distinct difference between "Independent" voting (which Romney won by 5% nationally in an election he lost by landslide margins) and the "Moderate" vote, which went for Obama to the tune of 56% to 41%:

            http://www.csmonitor.com/...

            " Obama won self-declared moderates, 56 percent to 41 percent."

            How do you parse an election result in which Romney WON the "Independent" vote by 5%, but lost the "Moderate" vote by 15% (a 20% differential between the two voting blocks,) with your contention that "but the mix would still look somewhere in the neighborhood of moderate."  

            What is obvious to most observers has not registered with you (yet?,) but that is ok.  Everybody is entitled to their particular opinion on subjects like these, even if not corrected after observing obvious proof to the contrary.    

  •  How ironic that an article that refers to rising (0+ / 0-)

    inequality would be locked behind a paywall.

    Way to go, Gray Lady.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 08:17:54 PM PST

  •   Anyone not blind or corrupt can see (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard, StrayCat, No Exit

    that the Internet is a common carrier.  It carries everything digital, and high speed ISPs with cables to customers are local monopolies.

    Google Maps is an information service.  Wikipedia is an information service.  ISPs are common carriers.

    The problem began in 2002, when Michael K. Powell, the F.C.C. chairman who now heads the cable industry’s trade association, decided to exempt high-speed Internet access from so-called common carriage regulation. Those rules, applied most notably to phone service, bar providers from discriminatory service — everyone who pays a phone bill gets the same quality of service.  
    -- Susan Crawford, cited in the diary
     

    Powell is now paid MUCH more as spokesman for the regulated corporations. Maybe that kind of revolving door/express elevator is legal, but it stinks of corruption.

    FCC, do your job.

    There's no such thing as a free market!

    by Albanius on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 08:48:43 PM PST

  •  Anyone not blinded by corruption can see that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard, StrayCat

    the internet is a common carrier.  It carries all kinds of communication to almost everyone.  Local internet service providers (ISPs) are de facto monopolies: multiple competing fiber networks in the same neighborhood would be grossly wasteful and in fact the big providers divide up the market like a cartel.

    Wikipedia is an information service.  GoogleMaps is an information service.  The Internet is a common carrier by any reasonable definition.  However,

    The problem began in 2002, when Michael K. Powell, the F.C.C. chairman who now heads the cable industry’s trade association, decided to exempt high-speed Internet access from so-called common carriage regulation. Those rules, applied most notably to phone service, bar providers from discriminatory service — everyone who pays a phone bill gets the same quality of service.
    -- Susan Crawford, in the article cited in the diary.
    Powell is now making MUCH more as head of the industry than he did when head of the FCC.  That kind of revolving door/express elevator may be perfectly legal, but it stinks of corporruption.

    FCC, do your job.

    There's no such thing as a free market!

    by Albanius on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 09:02:34 PM PST

    •  sorry abt the double post, it seemed to disappear (0+ / 0-)

      the first time I tried to post it, and I didn't see it when I started to retype.  Second version is a little better IMO.

      There's no such thing as a free market!

      by Albanius on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 09:09:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Son of Colin Powell. A Republican, of course. (0+ / 0-)

      (sees bricked-up windows and curses) $#@!! A glitch in the Matrix! Run!

      The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

      by lotlizard on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:44:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site