Daily Digest - August 14: As Maine Goes, So Goes the Internet

Aug 14, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Racial Discrimination Alive and Well in Reproductive Healthcare (The Hill)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Racial Discrimination Alive and Well in Reproductive Healthcare (The Hill)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn looks at racial disparities in access to health care in the U.S. in light of the U.N.'s periodic review of countries' work to dismantle racism.

How Maine Saved the Internet (Bloomberg View)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford explains how a town in Maine with a population of only 3,321 got a reasonably priced, high-speed fiber optic network.

What’s Lost in the Market Basket Stories (Working Economics)

Workers should not have to rely on a benevolent CEO to ensure they have "good" jobs, writes David Cooper. Better labor laws would make sure everyone had those benefits.

Why Is it So Controversial to Help Poor Mothers Afford Diapers? (The Nation)

Bryce Covert calls out those who see diaper subsidy programs as "controversial," because these programs help children and working families to thrive. They should be a no-brainer, she says.

Working Anything but 9 to 5 (NYT)

Jodi Kantor looks at one mother's struggle with automated scheduling software that threw her and her child's lives into chaos, as she worked unpredictable and sometimes unreasonable hours.

Virgin America Flight Attendants Vote To Join Union (HuffPo)

One worker who voted against unionization in 2011 explained that since the last vote, grievances continued unaddressed, leading to yesterday's decisive win, reports Dave Jamieson.

Silicon Valley Is Ruining "Sharing" for Everybody (TNR)

Noam Scheiber decries the Silicon Valley definition of "sharing," which is more along the lines of under-regulated economic activity that takes advantage of users' skills, possessions, or property.

Share This

Daily Digest - July 30: Technology Builds Community, But Will It Limit Prosperity?

Jul 30, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Civic Tech and Engagement: How City Halls Can Help Construct Stronger Neighborhoods (Tech President)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford says that local governments demonstrating responsiveness through technology can improve public trust.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Civic Tech and Engagement: How City Halls Can Help Construct Stronger Neighborhoods (Tech President)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford says that local governments demonstrating responsiveness through technology can improve public trust.

Health Insurers Press to Exempt Millions From ACA (The Hill)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch explains the latest push by insurance companies to lower their own costs by limiting the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act.

Financial Market Oversight, Economic Recoveries, and Full Employment: Some Crucial Linkages (On The Economy)

Jared Bernstein says that implementing Dodd-Frank is essential to achieve full employment. For how to deal with financial oversight, he recommends turning to Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal.

Sympathy for the Overdog (Slate)

The employees of Market Basket, a Northeast grocery chain, are protesting their CEO's ousting. Luke O'Neil reports that they credit him with their fair wages and benefits, and fear a backslide.

New on Next New Deal

Roosevelt Reacts: NLRB Holds McDonald's Accountable for Labor Violations

Roosevelt Institute President and CEO Felicia Wong and Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch praise yesterday's National Labor Relations Board ruling for its common-sense support for workers.

Through Innovation, People Will Live Longer and Earn Less

In his video speculation for the Next American Economy initiative, MIT professor Frank Levy predicts the rise of an anti-technology movement as the economy stays stagnant.

Share This

Daily Digest - July 29: Companies Look to Turn Off the Tap on Free Water

Jul 29, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Companies Proclaim Water the Next Oil in a Rush to Turn Resources into Profit (The Guardian)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Companies Proclaim Water the Next Oil in a Rush to Turn Resources into Profit (The Guardian)

As the CEO of Nestle publicly declares that any water beyond survival needs should be paid for, Suzanne McGee considers the potential horror story of commodifying water.

Paid Leave Encourages Female Employees to Stay (NYT)

Federally mandated paid maternity leave could be one of the most powerful tools to reverse the decline of women's participation in the U.S. labor force, says Claire Cain Miller.

One More Clue that the Obamacare Lawsuits Are Wrong (TNR)

In light of current legal fights over health care exchange subsidies, Jonathan Cohn looks back to a 2010 e-mail from an influential House staffer for proof of Congress's intentions.

History Suggests Ryan Block Grant Would Be Susceptible to Cuts (Off the Charts)

Richard Kogan points out the vulnerability of block grants, which have less obvious impacts than individual programs. Of 11 major anti-poverty block grants, nine have faced cuts since 2001.

A Bill to Get the Labor Movement Back on Offense (The Nation)

George Zornick reports on a proposal by House Democrats that would make labor organizing a civil right and allow workers to take their complaints outside the National Labor Relations Board.

Fast Food Convention Portends Escalation in Strikes (MSNBC)

Ned Resnikoff writes that workers at this weekend's fast food convention pushed for more radical tactics as well as cross-movement collaboration with groups like Moral Mondays in North Carolina.

New on Next New Deal

After the End of the Innovation Era

Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, envisions a future of slowed technological growth in his speculation for the Next American Economy project.

Share This

Daily Digest - July 25: The Bad Science Behind the Anti-Woman Agenda

Jul 25, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Debunking the Bad Science on Abortion and Women's Health (The Hill)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Debunking the Bad Science on Abortion and Women's Health (The Hill)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn explains the truth behind the anti-abortion myths that are presented as fact by lawmakers who pass legislation that harms women's health.

Setting the Table for Housing Reform (Progressive Massachusetts)

Alex Lessin summarizes Roosevelt Institute | Boston's deep dive into housing policy, which led them to focus on increasing public participation at zoning meetings as a key step for fair housing.

Some Republicans Push Compassionate, Anti-Poverty Agenda Ahead of 2016 Contest (WaPo)

Zachary Goldfarb speaks to Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal, who says many of these Republican reform ideas only put a nicer spin on radical proposals like the Ryan budget plan.

Parts of Paul Ryan's Poverty Plan Even a Liberal Can Love (U.S. News & World Report)

Fixing mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines and limiting unnecessary professional licensing in some occupations are opportunities for bipartisan agreement, writes Pat Garofalo.

United Airlines' Outsourcing Jobs to Company That Pays Near-Poverty Wages Is Shameful (HuffPo)

Robert Creamer decries United for eliminating hundreds of middle-class jobs for the sake of financial performance. He writes that companies can't be permitted to put stock performance ahead of people.

Forget Too Big to Fail. Banks Bro-down to Borrow, and It May Cause a New Crash (The Guardian)

Heidi Moore calls on regulators to push new requirements on banks for their short-term lending, which she sees as a key piece of financial regulation to keep banks from failing.

New on Next New Deal

White House Summit Speakers: Look Beyond Congress for Action on Working Families

With Congress in gridlock, Julius Goldberg-Lewis, Midwest Regional Coordinator for Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network, praises the White House Summit on Working Families' focus on states and businesses.

Big Data is Watching You

In his speculation on the future for the Next American Economy initiative, Mike Mathieu, founder of high-tech business incubator Front Seat, says data-mining is coming for the human brain.

Share This

Dr. Strangelove and the Halbig Decision

Jul 22, 2014Mike Konczal

"Yes, but the whole point of a doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?" - Dr. Strangelove

So the DC Circuit Court ruled in Halbig v. Burwell hat health care subsidies can only go to states that set up their own health care exchanges rather than use the federal ones. That means indivdiuals from the 34 states who get subsidized health care from the federal exchange would no longer be able to get subsidies. (Another court ruled against this logic today.) I don't normally do health care stuff, but I've read a lot about this case and something strikes me as very odd.

As I understand it, those on the right who are pushing the Halbig case argue that there's a doomsday machine built into Obamacare. (Adam Serwer at MSNBC also caught this doomsday machine analogy.) If states don't set up their health care exchanges then they don't receive subsidies for health care from the federal government. According to this theory, the liberals who designed health care reform did this knowing that if subsidies were pulled, the system would collapse for states that didn't set up their exchanges.

It's important to note that those on the right are not arguing that this is a typo in the bill, because that wouldn't necessarily be sufficient to overturn the subsidies. They are arguing that Congress intentionally put this language in there to compel, bribe, incentivize, and otherwise threaten states that didn't set up their own exchanges. In the rightwing argument, liberals were saying "we are making the citizens of your state purchase health care, and if you don't set up an exchange they won't get the subsidies necessary to make the system work, so you'd better set up an exchange."

The right's argument hinges on the idea that since there's no evidence that this isn't the intent, it must be the intent. As the two authors of the legal challenge put it, Obamacare "supporters’ approval of this text reveals that their intent was indeed to enact a bill that restricts tax credits to state-run Exchanges. At no point have defenders of the rule identified anything in the legislative history that contradicts" their reading.

Here's the thing, though: like Strangelove notes, a doomsday machine only works if you tell others about it. So, why weren't the people in the vast network associated with Obamacare telling everyone about this threatening doomsday device after the bill passed?

If this was actually the intent, you'd expect that during the period where states were debating whether to set up exchanges, this would have been a major threat raised by somebody. Anyone, from President Obama to congressional leaders to health care experts and lawyers to activist groups on the ground in red states fighting for implementation, would have been saying, "if your state doesn't set up a health care exchange, your citizens are screwed. At the very least, you'll be leaving money on the table." ("Leaving money on the table" is always a good point to bring up, and if this doomsday machine really were the intent of the law, it would be true.)

I know of no evidence of this being the case. Does anybody? Numerous people are arguing that the legislative intent is clearly on providing subsidies to the federal exchange users. No wonder the dissent argued that the Halbig ruling was "a fiction, a post hoc narrative concocted to provide a colorable explanation for the otherwise risible notion that Congress would have wanted insurance markets to collapse in States that elected not to create their own Exchanges."

That doesn't change what the DC Circuit did, of course, but it should make a random person stop and wonder how much of a cynical ploy this whole thing is.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

"Yes, but the whole point of a doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?" - Dr. Strangelove

So the DC Circuit Court ruled in Halbig v. Burwell hat health care subsidies can only go to states that set up their own health care exchanges rather than use the federal ones. That means indivdiuals from the 34 states who get subsidized health care from the federal exchange would no longer be able to get subsidies. (Another court ruled against this logic today.) I don't normally do health care stuff, but I've read a lot about this case and something strikes me as very odd.

As I understand it, those on the right who are pushing the Halbig case argue that there's a doomsday machine built into Obamacare. (Adam Serwer at MSNBC also caught this doomsday machine analogy.) If states don't set up their health care exchanges then they don't receive subsidies for health care from the federal government. According to this theory, the liberals who designed health care reform did this knowing that if subsidies were pulled, the system would collapse for states that didn't set up their exchanges.

It's important to note that those on the right are not arguing that this is a typo in the bill, because that wouldn't necessarily be sufficient to overturn the subsidies. They are arguing that Congress intentionally put this language in there to compel, bribe, incentivize, and otherwise threaten states that didn't set up their own exchanges. In the rightwing argument, liberals were saying "we are making the citizens of your state purchase health care, and if you don't set up an exchange they won't get the subsidies necessary to make the system work, so you'd better set up an exchange."

The right's argument hinges on the idea that since there's no evidence that this isn't the intent, it must be the intent. As the two authors of the legal challenge put it, Obamacare "supporters’ approval of this text reveals that their intent was indeed to enact a bill that restricts tax credits to state-run Exchanges. At no point have defenders of the rule identified anything in the legislative history that contradicts" their reading.

Here's the thing, though: like Strangelove notes, a doomsday machine only works if you tell others about it. So, why weren't the people in the vast network associated with Obamacare telling everyone about this threatening doomsday device after the bill passed?

If this was actually the intent, you'd expect that during the period where states were debating whether to set up exchanges, this would have been a major threat raised by somebody. Anyone, from President Obama to congressional leaders to health care experts and lawyers to activist groups on the ground in red states fighting for implementation, would have been saying, "if your state doesn't set up a health care exchange, your citizens are screwed. At the very least, you'll be leaving money on the table." ("Leaving money on the table" is always a good point to bring up, and if this doomsday machine really were the intent of the law, it would be true.)

I know of no evidence of this being the case. Does anybody? Numerous people are arguing that the legislative intent is clearly on providing subsidies to the federal exchange users. No wonder the dissent argued that the Halbig ruling was "a fiction, a post hoc narrative concocted to provide a colorable explanation for the otherwise risible notion that Congress would have wanted insurance markets to collapse in States that elected not to create their own Exchanges."

That doesn't change what the DC Circuit did, of course, but it should make a random person stop and wonder how much of a cynical ploy this whole thing is.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Daily Digest - July 17: Are We Building a Sustainable Future?

Jul 17, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Why This One UN Report on Sustainable Development is Different from the Rest (UN Dispatch)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Why This One UN Report on Sustainable Development is Different from the Rest (UN Dispatch)

Campus Network Senior Fellow for Defense and Diplomacy Nehemiah Rolle says the Global Sustainable Development Report incorporates a broad array of both science and policy data.

Will a Fox, Time Warner Deal Be Approved? (Bloomberg TV)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford says the Federal Communications Commission has an interest in regulating these big mergers to protect the future of U.S. communications.

Imagining Economic Policy Focused on Women (Real News Network)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Rob Johnson points to minimum wage, work sharing, and paid family leave as key policies for improving women's opportunities and thus the economy as a whole.

Punish the Executives, Not Just the Banks (New Yorker)

The short-term incentives for individuals on Wall Street continue to encourage risky and destructive business practices, writes James Surowiecki, which is why bank settlements aren't effecting change.

America’s Unrequited Corporate Love Affair (MSNBC)

Timothy Noah says the trend toward reincorporating abroad to avoid U.S. taxes is only part of a larger negative shift in the relationship between American corporations and the state.

Hobby Lobby's Harvest: A Religious Exemption for LGBT Discrimination? (LA Times)

Michael Hiltzik looks to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to explain why President Obama should not allow a religious exemption in his executive order barring discrimination against LBGT workers.

New on Next New Deal

Fighting Bad Science in the Senate

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Andrea Flynn says that even when they won't pass, strongly pro-choice bills like the Women's Health Protection Act are a means of fighting anti-choice falsehoods.

Share This

Fighting Bad Science in the Senate

Jul 17, 2014Andrea Flynn

The Senate hearing for the Women's Health Protection Act shows just how important it is for women's health advocates to push for the facts.

The Senate hearing for the Women's Health Protection Act shows just how important it is for women's health advocates to push for the facts.

The propensity of anti-choice advocates to eulogize false science was on full display on Tuesday’s Senate hearing on the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA). That bill is a bold measure that would counter the relentless barrage of anti-choice legislation that has made abortion – a constitutionally protected medical procedure – all together inaccessible for many U.S. women.

The bill was introduced last year by Senators Richard Blumenthal and Tammy Baldwin and Representatives Judy Chu, Lois Frankel and Marcia Fudge. It prohibits states from applying regulations to reproductive health care centers and providers that do not also apply to other low-risk medical procedures. It would, essentially, remove politicians from decisions that – for every other medical issue – remain between individuals and their providers.

The WHPA is long overdue. For the past three years, conservative lawmakers have used the guise of protecting women’s health to pass more than 200 state laws that have closed clinics, eliminated abortion services, and left women across the country without access to critical reproductive health care. The WHPA would reverse many of those policies and prevent others from being passed.

Tuesday's hearing was representative of the broader debate over abortion rights. Those in favor of the bill argued that securing guaranteeing unfettered access to reproductive health care, including abortion, is critical to the health and lives of U.S. women and their families.

Those in opposition used familiar canards about abortion to argue the law would be calamitous for U.S. women. Representative Diane Black of Tennessee had the gall to make the abortion-leads-to-breast cancer claim, one that has been disproven many times over. Others repeatedly cited the horrific cases of Kermit Gosnell, insinuating that all abortion providers (abortionists, in their lingo) are predatory and that late term abortions are a common occurrence. In fact, if women had access to safe, comprehensive and intimidation-free care, Kermit Gosnell would have never been in business. Given the opposition’s testimony, you’d never know that late term abortion is actually a rarity. According to the Centers for Disease Control, more than 90 percent of all abortions occur before 13 weeks gestation, with just over 1 percent taking place past 21 weeks.

At one point Representative Black argued that abortion is actually not health care. The one in three U.S. women who have undergone the procedure would surely argue otherwise.

Perhaps the most ironic testimony against the WHPA – and in favor of abortion restrictions – came from Senator Ted Cruz, who hails from Texas, a state with so many abortion restrictions that women are now risking their health and lives by self-inducing abortions or crossing the border to get care in Mexico. Senator Cruz attempted to validate U.S. abortion restrictions by referencing a handful of European countries with gestational restrictions on abortions. This was a popular argument during the hearing for Texas’ HB2 – the bill responsible for shuttering the majority of clinics in that state.

Cruz wins the prize for cherry picking facts to best support his argument. When citing our European counterparts, he conveniently ignored that such abortion restrictions are entrenched in progressive public health systems that enable all individuals to access quality, affordable (often free) health care, including comprehensive reproductive healthcare. Senator Cruz and his colleagues have adamantly opposed similar policies in the U.S., particularly the Affordable Care Act’s provisions for contraceptive coverage and Medicaid expansion. On the one hand conservatives lean on European policies to argue for stricter abortion restrictions at home, and on the other they claim those policies are antithetical to the moral fabric of the United States.

Would Cruz support France’s policies that enable women to be fully reimbursed for the cost of their abortion and that guarantees girls ages 15 to 18 free birth control? Or Belgium’s policy that enables young people to be reimbursed for the cost of emergency contraception? Or the broad exceptions both countries make for cases of rape, incest, and fetal impairment, to preserve woman’s physical or mental health, and for social or economic reasons? He absolutely would not.

Given the House of Representatives seems to be more motivated by suing the President than by voting on – let alone passing – laws that will actually improve the health and lives of their constituents, it’s highly unlikely the WHPA will become law. But Tuesday's debate – and the bill itself – is significant and shows a willingness among pro-choice advocates to go on the offense after too many years of playing defense.

Bills such as the WHPA – even if they face a slim chance of being passed by a gridlocked Congress – provide an opportunity to call out conservatives' use of bad science in their attempts to convince women that lawmakers know best when it comes to their personal medical decisions. And they allow us to remind lawmakers and citizens that despite all of the rhetoric to the contrary, abortion is a common, safe and constitutionally protected medical procedure, and that regulating it into extinction will only force women into back-alley practices like those run by Gosnell, costing them their health and their lives.

Those in support of the WHPA showed anti-choice lawmakers that the days of make a sport of trampling women’s health and rights are numbered.

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn.

Share This

The Supreme Court's One-Two Punch Against Women's Health: McCullen and Hobby Lobby

Jul 2, 2014Andrea Flynn

The Court's rulings place more barriers, both physical and financial, between U.S. women and basic health care.

The Court's rulings place more barriers, both physical and financial, between U.S. women and basic health care.

In the last week the Supreme Court announced two decisions that could dramatically change the landscape of women’s health access in the United States. It will be some time before we know the full impact of McCullen v. Coakley and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, but in the short term two things are for sure. The decisions will make it more difficult and less safe for many women to get the care they need, and they will undoubtedly embolden a conservative movement that hardly needs fortification.

The last three years brought record setbacks to women’s health and rights. More abortion restrictions were enacted between 2011-2013 (205) than in the entire previous decade (189). Today nearly 90 percent of U.S. counties do not have an abortion provider and more than 56 percent of U.S. women live in a state hostile to abortion. In many states the procedure has essentially been regulated out of existence. But it’s not just abortion rights that are under attack. The days of conservatives being “anti-abortion” but pro-family planning are long behind us. Today’s conservatives view birth control as the gateway drug to abortion, and regulate it with the same zeal they once saved for abortion.

Restrictions to Title X funding are closing publicly funded clinics around the country. Those clinics serve to provide reproductive health services to low-income and young women, and the majority do not even provide abortions. There is reason to fear that other conservative states are following the lead of Texas, where thousands of women are dealing with the consequences of a complete lack of access to basic health care thanks to lawmakers who have closed a record number of clinics. 

Making matters worse, today 24 states are not participating in the Medicaid expansion originally mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), leaving two-thirds of poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of low-wage workers uninsured.

It’s against this backdrop that we have McCullen and Hobby Lobby, two decisions that are effectively a one-two punch to U.S. women. They allow employers to erect financial barriers to contraceptive choice and embolden protesters to serve as physical and emotional barriers to women’s basic health care. 

In McCullen, the Court struck down as a violation of free speech a Massachusetts law that provided a 35-foot “buffer zone” around clinics that provide abortion. The law was created to protect patients entering clinics, and many states have similar regulations in place. It’s unclear what will happen to those other buffer zones. It’s also more than slightly ironic that the Supreme Court, the very body responsible for upholding freedom of speech, has a 100-foot buffer zone that is still intact.

Protesters will feel vindicated in their attempt to persuade, intimidate, threaten, and terrorize women from accessing care to which they are constitutionally guaranteed. Last weekend the Boston clinic at the heart of the McCullen case saw a threefold increase in protesters. That’s just in Massachusetts. Clinics in more conservative states regularly see hundreds of protesters on a given day.

Hobby Lobby was just one of more than 50 companies (supported by organizations like the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty) that took issue with the ACA’s “contraceptive mandate,” the requirement that all employer-based health plans fully cover, without cost sharing, all FDA-approved methods of contraception. These companies filed claims against the mandate, arguing that intra-uterine devices (IUDs) and emergency contraception (EC) constitute abortion and therefore being required to provide coverage for those methods was a violation of their religious liberty. Never mind that by all accepted medical standards those methods prevent, not terminate, pregnancy. The Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, allowing “closely held” companies – generally understood to be those having more than 50 percent of the value of their stock owned by five or fewer individuals – to refuse coverage of certain contraceptive methods.

So, what happens now? Well, most women who work for Hobby Lobby and other such companies will no longer have access to the contraceptive method of their choice. They will have to decide if they want to pay for those methods out of pocket or go to a clinic where they can receive subsidized care, if they are lucky enough to have access to one. This will place additional and unnecessary pressure on an already embattled public health infrastructure.

The majority claimed the Hobby Lobby ruling was narrow and would not have the sweeping consequences suggested in Justice Ginsburg’s scathing and on-point dissent. I’m not convinced. According to Harvard Business Review, 90 percent of U.S. companies are considered closely held, and those companies employ more than 51 percent of U.S. workers. There are already at least 80 other cases waiting to follow in Hobby Lobby’s footsteps. Given conservatives’ strategic organizing and employers’ willingness to carry the anti-reproductive rights, anti-Obama, anti-ACA banner, others will surely join the cause.

For the time being, the ACA – and the mandate – remain intact, even if somewhat fractured. We should continue to fight for the full implementation of the ACA, a historic – and by all measures successful – piece of legislation that is advancing the vision FDR articulated more than 70 years ago when he called for a Second Bill of Rights. That vision included medical care to allow all Americans to achieve and enjoy good health.

In falsely pitting freedom of speech and religion against women’s rights – as if women don’t also have rights to those same freedoms – the Supreme Court has given momentum to an already fast-moving train. Conservatives will only have more resolve to continue tearing down the building blocks of women’s health and rights. It’s going to take a lot to stop them. A lot of outrage, a lot of action, and a lot of engaged voters committed to standing up for women’s rights. Here’s hoping we can make that happen.

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter @dreaflynn.

Image via Thinkstock

Share This

Daily Digest - June 23: Weak Labor, Low Wages Feed Unstable Housing Market

Jun 23, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Housing Market Falters Amid Rising Prices, Lower-Paying Jobs (Bloomberg)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Housing Market Falters Amid Rising Prices, Lower-Paying Jobs (Bloomberg)

Kathleen M. Howley reports on new, weaker forecasts for the housing market, and blames slow labor growth, which is primarily in low-wage jobs, and stagnant wages.

Poll: Fewer Americans Blame Poverty on the Poor (NBC News)

A new poll shows a major shift in how Americans perceive the causes of poverty since 1995, writes Seth Freed Wessler. Nearly half of respondents today blame structural causes.

The Economic Argument for Raising Women's Pay (Political Research Associates)

Mariya Strauss assesses the economic benefits of pay equity, which include increased economic growth and tax revenues, as well as a reduced need for public assistance programs.

Republicans Finally Admit Why They Really Hate Obamacare (NY Mag)

As the predictions of Obamacare skeptics are steadily debunked, Jonathan Chait says conservatives are forced to admit they just don't like transfer programs to help the poor.

The Big Lobotomy (Washington Monthly)

Paul Glastris and Haley Sweetland Edwards look at how Republicans in Congress have cut the Congressional workforce, reducing expertise and capacity as well as limiting their own effectiveness.

Why Inequality Might Make Kids Drop Out of High School (WaPo)

A new study suggests that the "economic despair" caused by increased inequality is the reason for higher dropout rates, reports Matt O'Brien.

Finally! Big Investors Declare War on Big Banks (The Fiscal Times)

David Dayen reports on a new front in the post-financial crisis legal battle:  a group of investors sues the trustee banks that assembled mortgage bonds for abandoning quality standards.

Share This

Daily Digest - June 12: Health Care Reform is Here to Stay, But Can It Be Improved?

Jun 12, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our Monday through Friday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Time to Bring Back the Public Option — Medicare in All Exchanges (The Hill)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our Monday through Friday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Time to Bring Back the Public Option — Medicare in All Exchanges (The Hill)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch says that as the discussion of Obamacare shifts from repeal to reform, the first improvement should be expanding access to Medicare coverage.

Ken Burns: Go Ahead, Campaign on the Affordable Care Act (U.S. News & World Report)

Nikki Schwab reports on Ken Burns's remarks on current big policy issues at the "Inequality Begins at Birth" conference, where he screened his upcoming documentary about the Roosevelts.

Republicans Just Killed Elizabeth Warren's Plan to Ease Americans' Crushing Student Loan Debt (MoJo)

Senator Warren's bill would have allowed borrowers to refinance at lower interest rates, writes Patrick Caldwell. Republicans filibustered over the cost, but the bill would have reduced the deficit.

U.S. Economic Recovery Looks Distant as Growth Lingers (NYT)

Binyamin Appelbaum reports on the government's reduced expectations for annual growth, which are leading some economists to wonder whether the economy can ever fully rebound.

What the Foreclosure Crisis Looks Like in Urban Neighborhoods with Few Single-Family Homes (WaPo)

When foreclosure hits neighborhoods filled with small apartment buildings, it reduces cities' already limited supply of affordable rental stock, says Emily Badger.

New on Next New Deal

Do Taxpayers Care if Student Loans Are Paid Off Too Quickly? (On Fair Value Accounting)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal argues that while private lenders might not like it when student loans are paid off ahead of schedule, the public shouldn't worry about it.

Share This

Pages