#build back better

[liberalsarecool]

Democratic energy policies and Green New Deal rhetoric are better than Republican deregulation and environmental destruction. #VoteBlue

Joe Biden and Democrats deliver.

[reality-detective]

[injuries-in-dust]

I won't say I'm looking forward to the Trump presidency 2.0

But I will keep in mind that history has shown us the best time something gets built up bigger and better than ever before, is after it has been burned to the ground.

[democracyunderground]

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

[taramysweetlove]

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Elizabeth Warren on weaponized budget models

In yesterday’s essay, I broke down the new series from The American Prospect on the hidden ideology and power of budget models, these being complex statistical systems for weighing legislative proposals to determine if they are “economically sound.” The assumptions baked into these models are intensely political, and, like all dirty political actors, the model-makers claim they are “empirical” while their adversaries are “doing politics”:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/03/all-models-are-wrong/#some-are-useful

If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/04/cbo-says-no/#wealth-tax

Today edition of the Prospect continues the series with an essay by Elizabeth Warren, describing how her proposal for universal child care was defeated by the incoherent, deeply political assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office’s model, blocking an important and popular policy simply because “computer says no”:

https://prospect.org/economy/2023-04-04-policymakers-fight-losing-battle-models/

When the Build Back Better bill was first mooted, it included a promise of universal, federally funded childcare. This was excised from the final language of the bill (renamed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill), because the CBO said it would cost too much: $381.5b over ten years.

This is a completely nonsensical number, and the way that CBO arrived at it is illuminating, throwing the ideology of CBO modeling into stark relief. You see, the price tag for universal childcare did not include the benefits of childcare!

As Warren points out, this is not how investment works. No business leader assesses their capital expenditures without thinking of the dividends from those investments. No firm decides whether to open a new store by estimating the rent and salaries and ignoring the sales it will generate. Any business that operates on that basis would never invest in anything.

Universal childcare produces enormous dividends. Kids who have access to high-quality childcare grow up to do better in school, have less trouble with the law, and earn more as adults. Mothers who can’t afford childcare, meanwhile, absent themselves from the workforce during their prime earning years. Those mothers are less likely to advance professionally, have lower lifetime earnings, and a higher likelihood of retiring without adequate savings.

What’s more, universal childcare is the only way to guarantee a living wage to childcare workers, who are disproportionately likely to rely on public assistance, including SNAP (AKA food stamps) to make ends meet. These stressors affect childcare workers’ job performance, and also generate public expenditures to keep those workers fed and housed.

But the CBO model does not include any of those benefits. As Warren says, in a CBO assessment, giving every kid in America decent early childhood care and every childcare worker a living wage produces the same upside as putting $381.5 in a wheelbarrow and setting it on fire.

This is by design. Congress has decreed that CBO assessments can’t factor in secondary or indirect benefits from public expenditure. This is bonkers. Public investment is all secondary and indirect benefits — from highways to broadband, from parks to training programs, from education to Medicare. Excluding indirect benefits from assessments of public investments is a literal, obvious, unavoidable recipe for ending the most productive and beneficial forms of public spending.

It means that — for example — a CBO score for Meals on Wheels for seniors is not permitted to factor in the Medicare savings from seniors who can age in their homes with dignity, rather than being warehoused at tremendous public expense in nursing homes.

It means that the salaries of additional IRS enforcers can only be counted as an expense — Congress isn’t allowed to budget for the taxes that those enforcers will recover.

And, of course, it’s why we can’t have Medicare For All. Private health insurers treat care as an expense, with no upside. Denying you care and making you sicker isn’t a bug as far as the health insurance industry is concerned — it’s a feature. You bear the expense of the sickness, after all, and they realize the savings from denying you care.

But public health programs can factor in those health benefits and weigh them against health costs — in theory, at least. However, if the budgeting process refuses to factor in “indirect” benefits — like the fact that treating your chronic illness lets you continue to take care of your kids and frees your spouse from having to quit their job to look after you — then public health care costings become indistinguishable from the private sector’s for-profit death panels.

Child care is an absolute bargain. The US ranks 33d out of 37 rich countries in terms of public child care spending, and in so doing, it kneecaps innumerable mothers’ economic prospects. The upside of providing care is enormous, far outweighing the costs — so the CBO just doesn’t weigh them.

Warren is clear that there’s no way to make public child care compatible with CBO scoring. Even when she whittled away at her bill, excluding millions of families who would have benefited from the program, the CBO still flunked it.

The current budget-scoring system was designed for people who want to “shrink government until it fits in a bathtub, and then drown it.” It is designed so that we can’t have nice things. It is designed so that the computer always says no.

Warren calls for revisions to the CBO model, to factor in those indirect benefits that are central to public spending. She also calls for greater diversity in CBO oversight, currently managed by a board of 20 economists and only two non-economists — and the majority of the economists got their PhDs from the same program and all hew to the same orthodoxy.

For all its pretense of objectivity, modeling is a subjective, interpretive discipline. If all your modelers are steeped in a single school, they will incinerate the uncertainty and caveats that should be integrated into every modeler’s conclusions, the humility that comes from working with irreducible uncertainty.

Finally, Warren reminds us that there are values that are worthy of consideration, beyond a dollars-and-cents assessment. Even though programs like child care pay for themselves, that’s not the only reason to favor them — to demand them. Child care creates “an America in which everyone has opportunities — and ‘everyone’ includes mamas.” Child care is “an investment in care workers, treating them with respect for the hard work they do.”

The CBO’s assassination of universal child care is exceptional only because it was a public knifing. As David Dayen and Rakeen Mabud wrote in their piece yesterday, nearly all of the CBO’s dirty work is done in the dark, before a policy is floated to the public:

https://prospect.org/economy/2023-04-03-hidden-in-plain-sight/

The entire constellation of political possibility has been blotted out by the CBO, so that when we gaze up at the sky, we can only see a few sickly stars — weak economic nudges like pricing pollution, and not the glittering possibilities of banning it. We see the faint hope of “bending the cost-curve” on health care, and not the fierce light of simply providing care.

We can do politics. We have done it before. Every park and every highway, our libraries and our schools, our ports and our public universities — these were created by people no smarter than us. They didn’t rely on a lost art to do their work. We know how they did it. We know what’s stopping us from doing it again. And we know what to do about it.

Have you ever wanted to say thank you for these posts? Here’s how you can: I’m kickstarting the audiobook for my next novel, a post-cyberpunk anti-finance finance thriller about Silicon Valley scams called Red Team Blues. Amazon’s Audible refuses to carry my audiobooks because they’re DRM free, but crowdfunding makes them possible.

[Image ID: A disembodied hand, floating in space. It holds a Univac mainframe computer. The computer is shooting some kind of glowing red rays that are zapping three US Capitol Buildings, suspended on hovering platforms. In the background, the word NO is emblazoned in a retrocomputing magnetic ink font, limned in red.]

[cryoverkiltmilk]

[sordidamok]

At the end of this article, a homeowner is quoted as saying that there is "no good solution" to the problem of homelessness. He is speaking in the context of a false choice - let homeless people camp in urban areas or force them to move.

There is a solution to homelessness - affordable housing. And it would be cheaper to build or convert existing structures for that purpose than it is to continue to persecute the most vulnerable people in America.

Affordable housing would make it possible for people who are experiencing homelessness to focus on solving the problems that caused them to become homeless. They would be able to get jobs - many homeless people have jobs, but homelessness makes it much harder.

There are agencies in every city that would help people access mental health services and/or address other factors that make it harder for them to succeed, such as substance abuse. Housing would make it easier for people to take advantage of those services.

There will always be people who can't become self-sufficient. Many of those people can contribute to their communities, if they are given some help.

The relative few who simply can't or won't contribute are still human beings and worthy of housing. If they had a place to go, they would cause fewer problems for others. And again, it would be cheaper in the long run to house them.

This would take funding, of course. In the 1950s, when America's economy was the best it has ever been, the top tax rate was 90%. We wouldn't have to raise taxes on billionaires nearly that much to pay for nation-wide affrodable housing. Of course, government jobs, as under the New Deal, would make it possible for many people to work for the betterment of their communities and themselves.

Build back better than it ever was. Vote blue.

[personal-blog243]

If there is anyone in Pennsylvania who is undecided please send this to them. Or anyone who think that renewable energy is inherently bad for “the economy”.

Would it help if I pointed out Taylor Swift was born in Pennsylvania? 🙄

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan Cohn at HuffPost:

One of the Biden administration’s biggest legislative setbacks came when Democratic leaders had to give up on their “caregiving” agenda. The idea had been to transform everyday life for tens of millions of Americans by guaranteeing access to child care and paid leave, as well as home care for seniors and people with disabilities. And while the concept enjoyed plenty of support among high-ranking officials, few (if any) made it as much of a priority as Vice President Kamala Harris.

Harris had championed all three policies as early as the presidential transition, according to several sources inside and outside the White House who spoke with HuffPost. Later, Harris and her advisers advocated internally for including major new investments as part of what eventually became known as the “Build Back Better” legislation. “Her policy team really fought for it,” said Ai-jen Poo, who, as president of the National Workers Alliance, worked closely with the administration. And when efforts to enact the reforms eventually came up short because two members of the Senate Democratic caucus wouldn’t vote yes on the full legislative package, Harris made sure her allies knew the fight wasn’t over. “The vice president personally said to me that she is really committed to moving this agenda forward,” Poo said, “that she’s not going to give up, and we shouldn’t give up, either.” At the time, it felt like a promise for what President Joe Biden might pursue in a second term if he got one. Now, with Biden stepping aside and Harris the Democrats’ presumptive 2024 nominee, Poo cites that statement as one of several signs Harris would make caregiving a priority if she wins in November.

That feels like a pretty good bet. Election Day is less than four months away, Inauguration Day less than two months after that. But the unique circumstances of this campaign mean the elements of Harris’ prospective agenda are less clear than they normally would be at this point, at least by Democratic Party standards. On the one hand, Harris is part of an incumbent administration, running on its record and previously announced plans for new initiatives. But while Harris has certainly helped to shape both, she has never been the ultimate decision-maker. It’s safe to assume Harris has some different ideas about what to do or, at least, how to prioritize. Had there been a normal primary campaign, Harris would have sketched out that governing vision.

That never happened, and it’s probably not going to happen now. With her candidacy not even two weeks old, plus a running mate still to name and a convention still to stage, Harris doesn’t have the time to put together a bunch of new policies, let alone introduce them with speeches, white papers and expert testimonials. Her press team, meanwhile, isn’t saying much about policy ― except to confirm that Harris is no longer committed to some of the more progressive positions of her 2020 presidential bid, like promising to ban fracking or promoting a kinda-sorta-Medicare-for-All plan. Not that big new agenda pronouncements would get a ton of attention anyway. Threats to democracy and attacks on abortion rights are understandably much bigger preoccupations right now, and for much of the electorate, the most important thing about Harris is that she would fight both.

But Harris could win, putting her in a position to lay out a legislative agenda. And there’s plenty of reason to think caregiving initiatives would be a bit part of that, including the fact that policy conditions — in particular, the expiration of Trump-era tax cuts that could free up trillions in new funding — could give Harris a shot at ambitious, even historic reforms if she has a willing Congress to go along. “She could walk away from that first term saying that I brought America its first paid family leave and universal pre-K, and a refundable child tax credit that basically ends child poverty ― that’d be a hell of a legacy,” Bharat Ramamurti, former deputy director of the National Economic Council, told HuffPost. “That’s really within grasp.”

The political environment has shifted a lot since then, with challenges tied to care for children, elders and people with disabilities getting more attention. A driving force behind this shift has been the arrival of so many more women in so many more positions of authority. Kamala Harris is one of them. The well-being of children has been an area of focus ever since she was a district attorney in San Francisco and, later, the attorney general for California. Her legacy in the state includes the creation of a Bureau for Children’s Justice, which used the attorney general’s authority to investigate and (when appropriate) punish private and public sector organizations that serve children. Harris’ work to protect foster kids and juveniles in the justice system won praise from child welfare advocates, although an initiative to prosecute parents of truant children drew sharp criticism. (Harris later said she had regrets about it.)

[...]

Stories Of Working Mothers, Including Hers

Harris took an even bigger swing when she signed on to the “FAMILY Act,” a Democratic bill to guarantee paid leave — and then, as part of her presidential bid for 2020, rolled out an even more ambitious proposal that envisioned six months of paid leave. “I’ve been saying she is, in a lot of ways, the strongest paid leave elected [official] or candidate we’ve ever seen,” said Dawn Huckelbridge, founding director of Paid Leave for All. To make the case for paid leave, Harris frequently invokes the story of somebody close to her heart: her mother, who in her final years was battling cancer. “These issues have always been part of her agenda,” said Vicki Shabo, a longtime gender equity policy expert now at New America’s Better Life Lab (though speaking in her personal capacity, not for the organization). “She talks about her mother, her mother being such an important influence, and then pivots to her mother being sick and needing to care for her.” As a senator, Harris also cosponsored the Child Care for Working Families proposal, which sought to create “universal child care” by giving states enough money to cap child care costs for any family at 7% of household income. It was a vision for the largest expansion of the welfare state since the Affordable Care Act, one that would require hundreds of billions of dollars of new government spending in just the first 10 years.

[...]

The Caregiving Agenda’s Policy Questions

One reason to think these interests might carry over into a Harris presidency is that she has made early, clear references to both child care and paid leave in her speeches since becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee. [...] But actually passing major legislation on any element of the care agenda, let alone the entire package, would require more than commitment. It would require settling on the right policies — and rounding up enough votes. [...] The latter would obviously be a lot easier if Democrats get a majority in the House while holding on to the Senate ― which, although hardly likely, is certainly possible. If Democrats do keep control of the Senate, they will no longer have to deal with the two most conservative caucus members (Democrats-turned-independents Joe Manchin from West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona), who stood in the way of passing Build Back Better’s care agenda last time. Democrats would also have some money at their disposal, thanks to the looming expiration of the massive tax cuts Donald Trump signed into law when he was president.

[...]

The Message And The Messenger

Harris’ ability to manage such a situation with Congress ― or any situation with Congress ― is arguably the biggest question mark on her resume because it’s a skill that even gifted politicians take time to master. And Harris, frankly, hasn’t had that much time. She had been in the Senate for just two years when she announced she was running in the 2020 presidential election. During her unsuccessful bid to win the Democratic nomination, she struggled to explain and defend her health care plan in ways that raised questions about whether she fully understood ― or believed in ― what she was proposing. And while she’s now had three-plus years in the White House, it was Biden, the veteran legislator, who took the bulk of the negotiating portfolio. Harris, by most accounts, spent more of her time coordinating with outside groups or steering policy from within the White House.

But a big part of passing legislation is selling the product to Congress, to interest groups, and ultimately, to the public at large. And as Harris’ supporters are fond of noting, winning over everyday Americans is a lot like winning over a jury — a skill Harris demonstrated back in her prosecutor days. “When we were advocating for changes that we were seeking,” Martin said, “she really pressed us as staff to be able to not speak like the policy wonks that we are ― to be able to translate what we were talking about so that people in the midst of their busy lives could understand why it was important, how it would be important to them, how it would be important for other people and have impacts on our economy or our society.”

If Kamala Harris is elected as President, she will give priority to child chare, paid leave, and home care issues.

Read the full story at HuffPost.

[reality-detective]

WEF Caught Paying Arsonists To 'Burn Down the World' as Part of Sick Depopulation Plan

Far-left arsonists are engaged in a globalist plot to “burn down the world” according to a WEF insider who warns that humanity has been primed to fall for the globalist elite’s three-card trick.

The global elite laid the groundwork with the Covid pandemic, training the masses to be compliant, while pre-programming them with years of climate change propaganda in the media. As far as they are concerned, the wildfires are the final nail in our coffin.

Climate change is not only a hoax, it is a decades-old global depopulation plot, and WEF-infiltrated governments all over the world are going along with it. 🤔

[backtonormallife]

Pointing out some disinformation going around.

[democracyunderground]

President Joe Biden

I want to thank the workers, carriers, and port operators for acting patriotically to reopen our ports and ensure the availability of critical supplies for Hurricane Helene recovery. Today, our ports are open, dockworkers have secured record wages, and supplies can keep moving.

[thoughtportal]