Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Sequestration: What really happens...

Reuters has a nice write-up on what actually happens should the sequestration kick in on March 1st...(H/T Politico Playbook)

An excerpt:

"U.S. government won't fall apart on 'sequester' day of reckoning," by Reuters' Richard Cowan and David Lawder : "While some furlough notices will be issued to government workers, there will be few outward signs on March 1 that the cuts have been launched. Under the law, retirees are shielded and so their Social Security checks will arrive on schedule at the beginning of March and every month thereafter. Similarly, the elderly and the disabled will not see their federally backed Medicare healthcare curtailed at all over the seven months. Every U.S. soldier will get paid and the Defense Department will be allowed to shift funds to ensure that combat operations and 'critical military readiness capabilities' are not degraded, according to the Obama administration. Unofficially, many members of Congress are betting that a few weeks into the automatic spending cuts, Democratic and Republican leaders will get serious about negotiating a replacement to the sequestration and the $85 billion in spending cuts will not have had time to really bite. ...

"On March 1 and in the days immediately after , while no dramatic shakeup is anticipated, there will be some early tremors. * Government agencies are likely to issue 30-day warnings of impending furloughs of government workers. They could be told that starting on April 1 they will have to stay home for a maximum of 22 days between March 1 and Sept. 30. * New government contracts could slow in anticipation of no deal being reached to replace the sequestration. This would hit defense contractors and road and bridge builders alike. * Members of Congress, who are not exempt from the spending cuts, will be advised to begin preparing their staffs for either salary cuts or layoffs if they have to shave funds from their approximately $4 billion in annual appropriations." 

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Why the Balanced Budget Amendment is a bad idea...

The conservative think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute's Ramesh Ponnuru says the popular right wing goal of a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea and a waste of time.

" All the Republicans and 22 of the Democrats in the Senate, plus all the Republicans and 56 of the Democrats in the House, would have to vote for the idea to send it to the states. Then three-quarters of the states, which have grown increasingly dependent on federal deficit spending to keep their own budgets in balance, would have to ratify it. The amendment isn’t going anywhere.
Voters already know that Republicans are concerned about the deficit. Exit polls during the 2012 presidential election showed that voters favored the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, over President Barack Obama by two percentage points as a deficit-cutter. The 15 percent of voters who said the deficit was their top issue backed Romney 2 to 1.
The Republican Party has a lot of problems. A fight over the Balanced Budget Amendment would, at best, solve one it doesn’t have."
Is he right?

Read the whole thing here...

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-18/balanced-budget-amendment-still-a-terrible-idea-ramesh-ponnuru.html

Saturday, February 16, 2013

What's Driving Gang Violence? Great read from the Atlantic...


There's a great read over at The Atlantic featuring a thoughtful discussion between Ta-Nehisi Coates, Senior Editor for the magazine and Dr. Harold Pollack, an expert on youth violence from the University of Chicago's crime lab. The article is in conversation form and while a bit lengthy, is pretty interesting.

A preview:


I sometimes travel in some pretty tough neighborhoods, and it's been maybe 20 years since someone has laid an unfriendly hand on me. The gray hair seems to put me in a different category. The kids we encounter are sometimes a bit struck that one can be a shrimpy, nerdy guy and be a successful adult man. That option doesn't seem as open to them.
I remember when Allen Iverson came into the NBA and people could not understand why he walked around with twenty dudes. I totally understood, and I suspect a lot of black males did too. But one thing that's become clear to me, and that I've tried to grapple with in my blogging, is that cultural practices that offer some protection in one place are often quite harmful in another. Iverson's clique may have saved him countless times in Virginia Beach. But in that broader world, they sometimes empowered his worst urges. So much of my work is about how young black males negotiate violence, and how those negotiations affect them when they interact with the broader world.
I get a sense of that when I talk with young men in Chicago who participate in violence prevention efforts. Kids are wearing that ice-grill for some very real reasons in their world. It's just a tough assignment to be a 17-year-old kid in urban America.
We often hear some version of this story: "Dr. Pollack, I'm so glad you are doing this. There are too many guns, too much fighting out here. My friend was shot. But you have to know something: If some guy gets in my face in the hallway, I'm going to have to kick his ass because I can't afford to allow anyone to mess with me."
Your comments are right on the money that kids' approaches can be protective in one context, but quite harmful in another. If another 17-year-old gets in your face, you might have to be tough. If that's your automatic response, things won't go well when your 11th grade English teacher gets into your face over a missing assignment.
The academic literature also suggests that aggression-prone kids aren't very good at deciphering the unspoken intentions of other people. Psychologists speak of "hostile intention attribution bias," whereby youth interpret other people's ambiguous behavior as more hostile and more threatening than it actually is.
Some of the best interventions help kids with social-emotional and self-regulation skills so that they can deal more safely and productively with each other and with adult authority figures. We've found in randomized trials that such interventions can reduce violent offending. But you can't tell kids "Don't fight." That's not realistic in their world.
I do believe that kids are exposed to some pretty toxic messages about adult masculinity. Their lack of a decent roadmap is reinforced by crummy pop culture from Chief Keef to video games to BET. Much more important, though, many of these kids don't have adult men in their everyday lives available to show them how it's done. One could write 500 Ph.D. dissertations about how hip-hop or pornography mis-socializes young men in their relationships with women. I'm not thrilled about some of what the kids are listening to or viewing. Yet the Tipper-Gore-style anxieties seem misdirected. Media dreck is much less important than the ways youth observe adult men in their lives actually treat women. Much of the hip-hop that adults dislike reflects kids' real experiences. It isn't pretty to hear, but what's coming through people's ear-buds isn't the real problem.


Source: 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/the-social-trends-driving-american-gangs-and-gun-violence/273170/#

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Let's clear this Church sign business up, ok?


I made this sign...

Conservatives, Liberals, Independents, Believers, Non-Believers, Old, Young, Educated, Not Educated, etc. can make a sign...

You too can make a sign...

Have some fun with it, but don't think for a moment, they're serious representations from some church's readerboard, ok?

Friday, February 8, 2013

Blogging Break, Comments...


Blogging has been light for the last ten days or so. This is a temporary thing, as it just seems like a time to step back and let some things digest. What will Congress do about Sequestration? Just how ambitious, if at all, will President Obama's State of the Union address next Tuesday night be?
What happens with gun reform, the continued roll-out of the State based health insurance exchanges and the Affordable Care Act, immigration, etc?


My performance schedule has also been pretty demanding as has the adding of new material. Put it all together, Reasonable Conversation is in sort of a "lite mode" for the next few weeks. I plan on blogging about the SOTU address next week and if something else grabs my attention, I won't hesitate to write...

Thanks,

Bill