NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label farm bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label farm bill. Show all posts

06 February 2014

50 billionaires received $11.3 million in farm welfare, could get more in new farm bill & Farm bill passes after three years of talks & Hemp, farm-raised fish, food labels and food stamps: What’s in the farm bill? 7NOV13 & 4FEB&29JAN14

CONGRESS passed a Farm Bill and they are all giddy and patting themselves and each other on their backs, third way (jellyfish) democrats, repiglicans and tea-baggers. They are all giddy over cutting 8 billion dollars from SNAP, taking food from the mouths of children and their parents, from the long term unemployed, from the retired, from American veterans. God forbid, oh wait, not the Christian God, but their god, and of their greedy corporate farm masters, that they would obtain the savings from the 50 millionaires / billionaires who received farm subsidies last year, and by cutting the tax breaks and subsidies big agribusiness receives year after year. From Daily Kos and the Washington Post.....

Joan McCarter

Farmer in combine.
This is not Paul Allen.
Gee, where could we come up with some of the money need to replace that food stamp funding that was lost this week? Maybe from these people who are all collecting farm subsidies?
  • Paul Allen (Net worth: $15.8 billion)
    Co-founder of Microsoft
  • Charles Ergen (Net worth: $12.5 billion)
    Co-founder of DISH Network
  • Philip Anschutz (Net worth: $10 billion)
    Owner of Anschutz Entertainment Group and co-founder of Major League Soccer
  • Leonard Lauder (Net worth: $7.6 billion)
    Son of Estee Lauder and former CEO of the Estee Lauder Companies Inc.
  • Richard DeVos (Net worth: $6.8 billion)
    Co-founder of Amway and Republican candidate for governor of Michigan in 2006
  • Jim Kennedy (Net worth: $6.7 billion)
    Chairman of Cox Enterprises
  • S. Truett Cathy (Net worth: $6 billion)
    Founder of Chick-fil-A [...]
And many, many more. That's a list composed by the Environmental Working Group, using their database of farm subsidy recipients compared to Forbes 400 list of the country's richest people. Between 1995 and 2012, these 50 people—who have have a collective net worth of $316 billion—received $11.3 million in farm subsidy payments. They've probably have even received more in crop insurance payments, but we don't know because the law doesn't allow prohibits the disclosure of the identities of crop insurance policyholders.
While a congressional conference committee meets to decide if they're going to cut $40 billion (House bill) or $10 billion (Senate bill) from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, they are probably going to give billionaires even more!
[P]roposed changes adopted in both the House and Senate versions of the bill will likely allow these billionaires to bank millions more in premium subsidies. Both bills would shift subsidies from programs currently subject to means testing to the more generous crop insurance program. Unlike traditional farm subsidies, crop insurance premium subsidies are not currently subject to means testing, payment limits or conservation requirements. In 2008, Congress created a means test that was designed to deny some subsidies to individuals with annual off-farm income of more than $500,000. The year before, Bloomberg News published a report highlighting some of the billionaires who had been receiving subsidies. But, lawmakers specifically declined to apply it to crop insurance, which has become the primary government support for farm business income.
The system is already skewed for, of course, the largest one percent of farm businesses. They received about $227,000 a year in crop insurance premium support in 2011, according to EWG's analysis from USDA data. Meanwhile, the bottom 80 percent of farmers received only about $5,000 apiece. There is no reason on earth taxpayers should be subsidizing what are already nothing more than tax write-offs for the nation's wealthiest people. And we particularly should not be subsidizing them when millions are in danger of going hungry because the austerity fetishists in Congress think they're getting too much food.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/07/1253828/-50-billionaires-received-11-3-million-in-farm-welfare-could-get-more-in-new-farm-bill?detail=email 

Farm bill passes after three years of talks

4FEB14
Congress gave final approval Tuesday to a sweeping overhaul of a broad range of federal farm and nutrition policies affecting what farmers grow, how food is packaged and sold and how the government helps poor people pay for their groceries.
The Senate voted 68 to 32 Tuesday afternoon to approve a new, five-year farm bill that the House passed last week. The measure heads next to President Obama, who is expected to sign it in the coming days.
After nearly four years of haggling between Democrats and Republicans, the $956.4 billion package was unveiled last week and sailed through Congress in just a matter of days.
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) described the agreement Tuesday as "a major bipartisan jobs bill that makes sure that 16 million people who work in agriculture... have the support that they need."
The 959-page bill authorizes the end of billions of dollars in direct subsidy payments to the nation’s farmers. In their place, farmers will be able to take advantage of a new crop insurance program. The agreement also saves billions by consolidating government conservation programs and cuts about $8 billion in funding for food stamps by tweaking eligibility rules. The bill is supposed to cut roughly $16 billion in government spending over the next decade, according to government estimates.
The bill includes changes to complex programs involving environmental regulations on farms, aid to dairy and sheep farmers, and what kind of food the Agriculture Department should buy to replenish the nation’s food banks. But most of the political attention has focused on food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
Negotiations over a new bill nearly collapsed in July when House GOP leaders, bending to the demands of tea party members, split apart the farm bill and held separate votes on measures setting most agricultural policy and another that would have slashed $40 billion in SNAP money by dramatically rewriting eligibility rules.
Ultimately, House and Senate negotiators agreed to cut about $8 billion – or 1 percent of the program’s budget -- by closing a loophole that several states and the District of Columbia have used to boost SNAP payments to low-income households. That change will reduce benefits for about 850,000 households nationwide, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. Supporters say the cuts will come by implementing safeguards designed to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the program.
A bloc of liberal lawmakers voted against the legislation in opposition to the food stamp cuts, while some conservatives voted against the agreement because it failed to more boldly cut SNAP funding.
RELATED:
The Fix: What's in the farm bill?
Graphic: Americans on food stamps

 

05 February 2014

The loss of freedom in enforcing new rules for food stamps & An argument about regulation & 50 billionaires received $11.3 million in farm welfare, could get more in new farm bill 5&4FEB14 & 7NOV13

THIS is an insightful piece on the cuts to SNAP (food stamps) in the Farm Bill passed on Tuesday 4FEB14 outlining not only the harm that is being done to the 6th of our population dependent on SNAP, but the new humiliation and degradation they will suffer when applying for the program, and societies willingness to believe the least among us are the worst among us. I wish people in this Christian nation had a more charitable, Christian attitude about the social safety net and those who benefit from it. I also wish people would open their ears and eyes and realize that our nation's corporate welfare policies are more corrupt, more unjust and not subject to review and justification because of a well managed propaganda campaign funded by corporate America and the rich and powerful who feel they are entitled to tax cuts and subsidies at the expense of the rest of us. This is actually a "negative income tax" for the 1%. Austerity economics will be the destruction of the middle class and (literally) the death of some of our most needy fellow Americans. This is not what a Christian nation should look like. From the Washington Post and Bleeding Heart Libertarians....

Under the new farm bill:
USDA will need to ensure that illegal immigrants, lottery winners, college students and the dead cannot receive food stamps and that people cannot collect benefits in multiple states.
I’m sure that some of those exclusions (lottery winners, the dead) will seem unobjectionable to many readers, and the others (college students, illegal immigrants) will seem unobjectionable to a smaller subset of readers. However, in an insightful post, Jacob Levy argues that freedom-loving people should be skeptical of the new exclusions — even if they are hostile to food stamps in the first place:
A lot of people a lot of the time underestimate how burdensome, onerous, and intrusive complicated bureaucratic rules and regulations are. . . .
I think this is a case in which our biases between groups we like and groups we don’t is especially strong. We are mainly honest competent adults trying our best to do what we’re supposed to do, and they keep getting in our way with these insulting burdensome rules; they don’t take seriously the cost to our time and energy of having to prove compliance constantly, both by paperwork and by subordination to the administrative officials who monitor all of us in order to detect wrongdoing by a tiny few. You are basically suspect characters to begin with, and if we let you get away with it you’d all be running wild, and the other ways you were going to spend your time we don’t really like anyways, and we’re dubious enough about you that monitoring you closely is a good idea anyway even if some of you aren’t technically violating the rules, and the moral cost of even one of you getting away with this terrible thing is so great that we simply have to prevent it, and anyway what are you complaining about, if you obey the rules like you supposed to, there’s no harm to you. . . .
And so poor people will be subjected to another set of forms, another set of inspections, another set of surveillance and monitoring, another set of insults, another risk of false findings of guilt, for trivial financial savings. Someone gets to posture as having zero tolerance for some unacceptable outcome; that’s what the zero tolerance policies are for. And life for a sixth of the country’s population gets worse, more unfree, more subject to the burdens and intrusions of micromanaging regulation.
It’s worth reading the whole thing.
Levy also observes that this is another good reason for Milton Friedman’s proposal that we replace our ad hoc poverty programs with a “negative income tax,” which would just give the poor money (using our existing bureaucratic apparatus) and let them to decide what to do with it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/05/the-loss-of-freedom-in-enforcing-new-rules-for-food-stamps/?wprss=rss_national&clsrd 

A lot of people a lot of the time underestimate how burdensome, onerous, and intrusive complicated bureaucratic rules and regulations are. They casually treat the only cost of a rule as the cost to bad people of not doing whatever the rule prohibits, which isn’t a cost at all. But in order to have effect, rules have to be enforced; efforts have to be made to detect violations and monitor performance on an ongoing basis. This is a burden on the whole class subject to the rule, not only those who were going to break it. They have to devote themselves, at some margin, not to the thing they’re actually trying to do, but to proving that they’re not doing it in the prohibited way. They have to prove it through paperwork, which either they’re inexpert in compared to the official reviewing it or they have to (expensively) hire professionals to handle; and even people who had no intention of violating the underlying rule are put in perpetual jeopardy of wrongdoing-by-paperwork-mistake. They have to prove it in person to the various spot inspectors, administrative auditors, and other bureaucrats put in charge of monitoring and detection; and even people who had no intention of violating the underlying rule are made to feel like perpetual suspects or distrusted children instead of honest trustworthy adults.
I think that everyone recognizes this about themselves and groups to which they’re sympathetic. Politically we associate this kind of talk with business owners and managers complaining about government regulation, and that’s not a class to which academics are (as an overall pattern) especially warmly inclined– but goodness knows that academics understand these dynamics when it comes to the administrative micromanagement of our own professional lives. Time that we should be spending researching or teaching is instead spent asking for permission to do so, by humbly seeking to prove ourselves innocent of all sorts of potential malfeasance. No, I didn’t buy a glass of wine with that grant money. No, I haven’t given an in-class exam during the two weeks before finals. No, my study of Plato does not involve potential harm to human subjects or laboratory animals. No, I haven’t made up publications to include on my CV for my performance review. Yes, here’s the proof in triplicate.
I think this is a case in which our biases between groups we like and groups we don’t is especially strong. We are mainly honest competent adults trying our best to do what we’re supposed to do, and they keep getting in our way with these insulting burdensome rules; they don’t take seriously the cost to our time and energy of having to prove compliance constantly, both by paperwork and by subordination to the administrative officials who monitor all of us in order to detect wrongdoing by a tiny few. You are basically suspect characters to begin with, and if we let you get away with it you’d all be running wild, and the other ways you were going to spend your time we don’t really like anyways, and we’re dubious enough about you that monitoring you closely is a good idea anyway even if some of you aren’t technically violating the rules, and the moral cost of even one of you getting away with this terrible thing is so great that we simply have to prevent it, and anyway what are you complaining about, if you obey the rules like you supposed to, there’s no harm to you.
The point being, the new farm bill:

USDA will need to ensure that illegal immigrants, lottery winners, college students and the dead cannot receive food stamps and that people cannot collect benefits in multiple states.
Let’s start with the easy case: lottery winners. Let’s be wildly implausibly generous and say that there are five big-money winners per state per week. (Not all states offer lotteries, some lotteries are combined across states, some states offer multiple games, and not all lotteries pay out every week; but only “big money,” since presumably no one thinks that the $10 or $100 payout should affect eligibility.) 250 per week; about 12,000 per year. Say that half of those people were on food stamps to begin with (lottery players are disproportionately poor). Say that a third of those winners were inclined to cheat and keep drawing food stamps for which they’re no longer income-eligible, and to keep doing so for the whole year until their income is assessed again; 2000 would-be cheaters. Food stamps for a family of four max out at about $600 per month. So we’re looking at something like $14 million per year total in fraud prevented, if we can manage to detect 2000 would-be cheaters from a population of 47 million food stamp recipients.
Even the financial costs of any detection and enforcement mechanism serious enough to even try to get these false negatives (people who aren’t caught and thrown out of SNAP) down to 0 will be high; it wouldn’t surprise me for those costs alone to exceed $14 million (and I don’t for a second believe there will be $14 million in savings). As conservatives know when it comes to business, environmental, and health regulation, trying to turn one-in-20,000 events to 0-in-20,000 events is hard and expensive and complicated. Moreover (and as they also know) it generates errors in the other direction. “Zero-tolerance” policies are a plague on the American political and legal climate right now. The effort to make sure that no American child ever brings a narcotic or firearm to school is doomed to fail to begin with, and also results in stupid expulsions of children carrying aspirin or squirt guns. What we have here isn’t a new substantive rule (big-money lottery winners are already income-inelgiible for SNAP) but a zero-tolerance mindset applied to the existing rule, an effort to move from trivially-few to zero offenses; and innocent people will get caught in the net. (Something everyone could stand to remember: the lower frequency an offense is, the worse the ratio is likely to be between the false negatives you’re trying to prevent and the false positives you’re going to create.)
On top of all that: the process of proving one’s innocence all the time is a demoralizing, degrading one that subjects you to inspection, supervision, paperwork, and the will and whim of the enforcers. How can states ensure that no one is collecting food stamps for a dead household member? The answer has to involve paperwork and bureaucratic supervision or in-person monitoring by social workers or, in all likelihood, both. Illegal immigrants? Well, by definition they already lead a life of evading some kinds of bureaucratic surveillance. There’s no way to squeeze them our of the system harder without squeezing everyone else, too. (In a related vein, think of the proposals for drug testing as a condition of receiving welfare. That’s a lot of degradation to put a lot of non-drug-using people through for the sake, not of saving money (the cost of enforcement in this case is clearly higher than the money saved), but for the sake of a zero-tolerance regulatory insistence about welfare recipients not using drugs.)
And so poor people will be subjected to another set of forms, another set of inspections, another set of surveillance and monitoring, another set of insults, another risk of false findings of guilt, for trivial financial savings. Someone gets to posture as having zero tolerance for some unacceptable outcome; that’s what the zero tolerance policies are for. And life for a sixth of the country’s population gets worse, more unfree, more subject to the burdens and intrusions of micromanaging regulation.
This kind of thing is, famously, among Milton Friedman’s reasons for advocating a negative income tax in place of the complex array of partial-coverage welfare policies in America. (It’s also among the reasons called upon today by supporters of basic income guarantees.) I think Friedman understood, not only that regulations are administratively expensive to enforce, but that they’re also sources of unfreedom for the many people who don’t violate them. And the effort to make sure that income support only ever goes to the deserving poor however conceived, to regulate their behavior to stop them from doing whatever it is the undeserving do, is regulation, and requires the same costs, sacrifices, and burdens regulation always requires. The bureaucratic state that governs poor people (or would-be immigrants) is the same bureaucratic state that governs taxpayers and businesses and people holding bank accounts and people travelling in airplanes and so on. The arguments about regulation’s costs for the latter groups are good arguments! But they’re arguments that it’s wicked to selectively forget when it comes to regulating the former groups.
A few of our readers here will say: well, food stamps are already theft, so the people receiving them are already not innocent, so they have nothing to complain about. I’m not here defending the existence of food stamps (though neither are the Republicans making the principled argument against them.) For reasons I discussed here, I think that once states exist they just do act redistributively and that there’s sound responsible reason for them to do so in a way that staves off disastrous material deprivation (e.g. hunger). The new food stamp regulations tilt me some little bit closer toward the negative income tax/ basic income guarantee strategies for how that should be organized. For those who don’t share my views about this, I’ll say: you probably also oppose the existence of public schools. I’ll bet that you additionally recognize the stupidity, indignity, costliness, and loss of freedom involved in the wave of zero-tolerance regulations within them. If so, extend the thought here: as long as the state is doing this thing, it ought to do so in a way that is more rather than less compatible with Hayek’s rule of law, with freedom from supervision and surveillance by the bureaucracy, with the ability to get on with living their lives rather than having to waste them proving their innocence.
Update:
Since a couple of people have pointed this out in this context, I’ll link it here: Milton Friedman argues with William F. Buckley on these questions.
And one more:
This is neither an argument against regulation as such, nor limited to cases of state regulation. Bureaucratization is part of the iron cage and we’re stuck with it, across a variety of institutional settings. But there are very important questions of degree when it comes to monitoring, compliance, and enforcement, and costs associated with the whole enterprise that don’t go away when shifting from a regulated class one likes to a regulated class one doesn’t…
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/02/an-argument-about-regulation/

50 billionaires received $11.3 million in farm welfare, could get more in new farm bill

Farmer in combine.
This is not Paul Allen.
Gee, where could we come up with some of the money need to replace that food stamp funding that was lost this week? Maybe from these people who are all collecting farm subsidies?
  • Paul Allen (Net worth: $15.8 billion)
    Co-founder of Microsoft
  • Charles Ergen (Net worth: $12.5 billion)
    Co-founder of DISH Network
  • Philip Anschutz (Net worth: $10 billion)
    Owner of Anschutz Entertainment Group and co-founder of Major League Soccer
  • Leonard Lauder (Net worth: $7.6 billion)
    Son of Estee Lauder and former CEO of the Estee Lauder Companies Inc.
  • Richard DeVos (Net worth: $6.8 billion)
    Co-founder of Amway and Republican candidate for governor of Michigan in 2006
  • Jim Kennedy (Net worth: $6.7 billion)
    Chairman of Cox Enterprises
  • S. Truett Cathy (Net worth: $6 billion)
    Founder of Chick-fil-A [...]
And many, many more. That's a list composed by the Environmental Working Group, using their database of farm subsidy recipients compared to Forbes 400 list of the country's richest people. Between 1995 and 2012, these 50 people—who have have a collective net worth of $316 billion—received $11.3 million in farm subsidy payments. They've probably have even received more in crop insurance payments, but we don't know because the law doesn't allow prohibits the disclosure of the identities of crop insurance policyholders.
While a congressional conference committee meets to decide if they're going to cut $40 billion (House bill) or $10 billion (Senate bill) from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, they are probably going to give billionaires even more!
[P]roposed changes adopted in both the House and Senate versions of the bill will likely allow these billionaires to bank millions more in premium subsidies. Both bills would shift subsidies from programs currently subject to means testing to the more generous crop insurance program. Unlike traditional farm subsidies, crop insurance premium subsidies are not currently subject to means testing, payment limits or conservation requirements. In 2008, Congress created a means test that was designed to deny some subsidies to individuals with annual off-farm income of more than $500,000. The year before, Bloomberg News published a report highlighting some of the billionaires who had been receiving subsidies. But, lawmakers specifically declined to apply it to crop insurance, which has become the primary government support for farm business income.
The system is already skewed for, of course, the largest one percent of farm businesses. They received about $227,000 a year in crop insurance premium support in 2011, according to EWG's analysis from USDA data. Meanwhile, the bottom 80 percent of farmers received only about $5,000 apiece. There is no reason on earth taxpayers should be subsidizing what are already nothing more than tax write-offs for the nation's wealthiest people. And we particularly should not be subsidizing them when millions are in danger of going hungry because the austerity fetishists in Congress think they're getting too much food.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 09:09 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/07/1253828/-50-billionaires-received-11-3-million-in-farm-welfare-could-get-more-in-new-farm-bill?detail=email 

22 November 2013

VETERANS DAY CEREMONY PHOTO 11NOV13

Just a reminder, our Vets and troops need you to speak up for them....

GOP Food Stamp Cuts Would Kick 170,000 Vets Out of the Program 11NOV13

HERE is a way to show our Vets (and many of our active duty troops) we do support them. The proposed cuts to SNAP (food stamps) included in the Farm Bill being considered in Congress will remove 170,000 of the 900,000 Vets who depend on SNAP to survive. Please e mail your Senators here http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and your Representative here http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and tell them to vote against any Farm Bill that cuts SNAP. See more at Support Grows In House to Save Food Stamps by Killing Farm Bill 21NOV13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/support-grows-in-house-to-save-food.html
| Mon Nov. 11, 2013 9:26 AM PST
Republicans will salute America's veterans Monday, while simultaneously trying to deny them benefits. In addition to reducing housing aid, and denying health care to vets, the GOP is also trying to remove thousands of vets from the food stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
At least 900,000 veterans rely on SNAP. The House Republican version of the farm bill, the five-year piece of legislation that funds nutrition and agriculture provisions, would slash funding for the food stamps program by nearly $40 billion and boot 2.8 million people off the program next year. That includes 170,000 veterans, who would be removed through a provision in the bill that would eliminate food stamps eligibility for non-elderly jobless adults who can't find work or an opening in a job training program.
CHARTS: The Hidden Benefits of Food Stamps.
Veterans returning home from service have more trouble finding work than other folks, and rely more heavily on the food stamp program. The unemployment rate for recent veterans—those who have served in the past decade—is about 10 percent, almost 3 points above the national unemployment rate. War-related disabilities are one reason why. About a quarter of recent veterans reported service-related disabilities in 2011. Households that have a disabled veteran who is unable to work are twice as likely to lack access to sufficient food than households without a disabled service member, according to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
This month, SNAP funding was reduced by $5 billion as extra stimulus money for the program expired. While the Senate will never approve the $40 billion in further cuts to the food stamps program that House Republicans want, deeper cuts are pretty much inevitable. The two chambers are in the middle of negotiating a final version of the farm bill, which will contain food stamp reductions somewhere in between the $4 billion level the Senate wants and the level the Republicans want.
Whatever the final number, veterans will likely feel the pinch.
 http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/11/veterans-food-stamp-cuts-republicans-snap

21 November 2013

GOP Food Stamp Cuts Would Kick 170,000 Vets Out of the Program 11NOV13

HERE is a way to show our Vets (and many of our active duty troops) we do support them. The proposed cuts to SNAP (food stamps) included in the Farm Bill being considered in Congress will remove 170,000 of the 900,000 Vets who depend on SNAP to survive. Please e mail your Senators here http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and your Representative here http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and tell them to vote against any Farm Bill that cuts SNAP. See more at Support Grows In House to Save Food Stamps by Killing Farm Bill 21NOV13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/11/support-grows-in-house-to-save-food.html
| Mon Nov. 11, 2013 9:26 AM PST
Republicans will salute America's veterans Monday, while simultaneously trying to deny them benefits. In addition to reducing housing aid, and denying health care to vets, the GOP is also trying to remove thousands of vets from the food stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
At least 900,000 veterans rely on SNAP. The House Republican version of the farm bill, the five-year piece of legislation that funds nutrition and agriculture provisions, would slash funding for the food stamps program by nearly $40 billion and boot 2.8 million people off the program next year. That includes 170,000 veterans, who would be removed through a provision in the bill that would eliminate food stamps eligibility for non-elderly jobless adults who can't find work or an opening in a job training program.
CHARTS: The Hidden Benefits of Food Stamps.
Veterans returning home from service have more trouble finding work than other folks, and rely more heavily on the food stamp program. The unemployment rate for recent veterans—those who have served in the past decade—is about 10 percent, almost 3 points above the national unemployment rate. War-related disabilities are one reason why. About a quarter of recent veterans reported service-related disabilities in 2011. Households that have a disabled veteran who is unable to work are twice as likely to lack access to sufficient food than households without a disabled service member, according to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
This month, SNAP funding was reduced by $5 billion as extra stimulus money for the program expired. While the Senate will never approve the $40 billion in further cuts to the food stamps program that House Republicans want, deeper cuts are pretty much inevitable. The two chambers are in the middle of negotiating a final version of the farm bill, which will contain food stamp reductions somewhere in between the $4 billion level the Senate wants and the level the Republicans want.
Whatever the final number, veterans will likely feel the pinch.
 http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/11/veterans-food-stamp-cuts-republicans-snap

Support Grows In House to Save Food Stamps by Killing Farm Bill 21NOV13

For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins — you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and push aside the needy in the gate. Therefore the prudent will keep silent in such a time; for it is an evil time.
- Amos 5:12-13  
CUTTING SNAP / Food Stamps any more than the much needed program has been cut by sequestration is unchristian. A nation that claims to be founded on Christian principles and politicians who claim to be guided by their Christian faith would not cut funding for a much needed social safety net program that provides for the least among us. Politics does at time make strange bedfellows, and here is an article from Mother Jones outlining how the proposed cuts to SNAP may be defeated in the US House. We pray their analysis is correct. If you believe SNAP should not be cut any further please e mail your Representative and tell him/her to vote against the farm bill being considered by the House, find your Rep's e mail address here http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/#listrep 
| Thu Nov. 21, 2013 5:15 AM PST
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.)
Congress is getting ready to pass a farm bill—the $500 billion piece of legislation that funds agriculture and nutrition programs—that will cut funding for food stamps. As Mother Jones reported last week, Democrats in the House are considering banding together to derail the bill entirely, thus preserving nutrition funding at its current level. Support for that idea is building.
The House and Senate are currently negotiating a compromise farm bill that will contain food stamps cuts somewhere between the $4 billion the Senate wants and the $40 billion the House wants. (These cuts will come on top of the $5 billion in funding reductions to food stamps that went into effect at the beginning of the month as extra stimulus money for the program expired.) On Thursday, Reps. Alcee Hastings (D-Florida) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.), co-chairs of the Congressional Homelessness Caucus—a group of House lawmakers devoted to policies that help the extremely poor—signaled that they are drumming up support for no votes on any compromise bill. The two lawmakers asked members of the caucus to sign a letter to the House and Senate agriculture committees opposing any cuts to the food stamp program, called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
"For those living without permanent housing, everyday life is extremely difficult," the lawmakers say in the letter. "SNAP benefits provide these individuals with a limited opportunity to obtain nourishment."
House Democrats wager that if enough House Republicans vote against a final farm bill because they think the food stamps cuts are not deep enough, only a small group of Dems will need to also vote against the bill in order to kill it. In this case, food stamps would continue to be funded at current levels.
There is precedent for this idea: the last food stamps battle. In June, the House failed to pass a farm bill that cut $20 billion from SNAP because 62 conservative Republicans thought that wasn't enough and 172 Democrats thought the reductions were far too deep. This time around, food stamps funding will probably be cut by around $10 billion in the farm bill, according to a Democratic aide. That means far more GOPers will vote against the bill. The more Republicans that House Speaker John Boehner loses, the more Dems he'll need to pass the farm bill. If Democrats don't play ball, they'll win—which could keep thousands of Americans from destitution. "For many families with limited resources living close to or at the poverty level," Hastings and Johnson write in the letter, "cuts to food benefits [would] force them to choose between food and rent."
 http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/11/food-stams-farm-bill-congressional-homelessness-caucus

03 August 2013

WONKBOOK ROUNDUP: The most uncomfortable question in today's jobs report & much more 2AUG13

WONKBOOK roundup for the week, articles on the who will be the new fed reserve chair, former republican EPA administrators on climate change, US oil reserves, the jobs report, the ongoing recession, the do nothing 113th Congress and more...
Welcome to Wonkbook, Ezra Klein and Evan Soltas’s morning policy news primer. Send comments, criticism, or ideas to Wonkbook at Gmail dot com. To read more by Ezra and his team, go to Wonkblog.
Today is jobs day. And today’s jobs report, like most jobs report, will lead directly to the most uncomfortable question of the recovery: Has there even been an economic recovery?
Spend much time looking at the drop in the percentage of Americans participating in the labor force and you’re likely to think not. Unemployment has fallen 2.5 percent from its post-recession peak, but the share of working-age adults with jobs has barely budged. This leads to scary graphs, like this one, or scary stats, like this one: If labor-force participation had held at its pre-recession peak, unemployment would be around 9.7 percent today.
The implication of these numbers is that the recovery is a mirage. The official unemployment rate only counts people actively looking for work. It’s dropped less because people have found work than because they’ve stopped looking. Ergo, there’s been no recovery — just a hardening of the post-recession labor market.
This is a story I gestured at on Thursday. But Marc Goldwein of the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget pointed me towards an Urban Institute paper that complicates the situation considerably.
The popular (well, popular among depressed econ wonks) image of discouraged workers sighing and deleting their Monster.com account once and for all is wrong. The rate of labor force exit is actually lower than it was in the aftermath of the 2001 recession. It’s labor force entry that’s suffered.
In particular, it’s suffered among women — and it’s really suffered among young women – who are a lot less likely to enter the labor force than they were in 2002 and 2003.
That is, in certain ways, a more encouraging trend: Discouraged workers who leave the labor force typically see their skills erode. Young people who delay entry are often staying in school longer, gathering skills that will ultimately prove valuable to them (and student loan debt that will prove burdensome).
But that comforting possibility surely doesn’t explain all of the drop in entry we’re seeing among younger people. And it doesn’t really explain any of the drop in entry we’re seeing among older people.
There’s been a recovery. The growth numbers, and the payroll numbers, and the consumer confidence numbers, are all enough to tell us that. But not as much of a labor-market recovery as the unemployment rate indicates. A lot of people have been left behind, or perhaps more accurately, been discouraged from starting at all.
Wonkbook’s Number of the Day: 3.8 billion. That’s the increase in “proved” oil reserves in the U.S. since last year, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Wonkblog’s Graph of the Day: This graph calls the entire economic recovery into question.
Wonkbook’s Top 5 Stories: 1) three candidates left standing for Fed chair; 2) jobs report today; 3) burning nonexistent Obamacare draft cards; 4) the big legislative THUD; and 5) UN no longer Power-less.
1) Top story: And then there were three
Obama narrows field for Fed chairman to three. “Mr. Obama is now in the process of interviewing three candidates for the position at the helm of the central bank: Mr. Summers; Janet L. Yellen, the vice chairwoman at the Federal Reserve, who had generally been considered the front-runner for the job; and a dark horse for the post, Donald L. Kohn, a former Fed vice chairman. In his meeting on Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama stressed that he had not yet made up his mind…One early candidate for Fed chairman was Timothy F. Geithner, the former Treasury secretary and Obama confidante, insiders said. The White House approached Mr. Geithner to ask if he would be considered for the job, but he declined.” Annie Lowrey in The New York Times.
@TheStalwart: Yellen would provide continuity from Bernanke. Summers believes more in fiscal stimulus. Why is Yellen more favored by the left?
What kind of Fed chair would Larry Summers be? This March speech gives hints. “Summers argued that the goal of monetary policy is changing. Instead of focusing on reducing volatility in the near-term, central banks should concentrate on preventing disasters. That suggests he might at least be open to raising interest rates to pop emerging bubbles…Summers seems to give more weight to the argument that the levels of economic activity before the crisis were artificially high due to bubbles and that the economy is undergoing a more fundamental shift -- and that the Fed has limited power to counteract a structural change.” Ylan Q. Mui in The Washington Post.
Explainer: A reading list to the Fed contenders. Binyamin Appelbaum in The New York Times.
Former Fed vice chairman Roger Ferguson could be contender for top job. “On Sept. 11, 2001, Roger W. Ferguson, then the mild-mannered vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, found himself unexpectedly asked to play the role of first responder in what could have been a global financial meltdown…Ferguson, by all accounts, nailed it. He issued a statement short enough to get through to people but clear enough that no one could mistake its meaning: "The Federal Reserve System is open and operating. The discount window is available to meet liquidity needs." Banks took out $46 billion in emergency loans, 200 times the daily average before the attacks. He led briefings to organize the Fed banks across the country to work in concert to ensure that the human disaster of Sept. 11 did not also become a financial disaster.” Dylan Matthews in The Washington Post.
KRUGMAN: Sex, money and gravitas. “[T]here are not one but two sexist campaigns under way against Ms. Yellen. One is a whisper campaign whose sexism is implicit, while the other involves raw misogyny. And both campaigns manage to combine sexism with very bad economic analysis…The wrongheadedness of the gravitas crowd, like its sexism, is subtler. But to the extent that having gravitas means something other than being male, it means being what I like to call a Very Serious Person -- the kind of person who talks a lot about the need to make tough decisions, which somehow always involves demanding sacrifices on the part of ordinary families while treating the wealthy with kid gloves.” Paul Krugman in The New York Times.
DELONG: Pick Summers. “If times were normal, my first choice among the Fab Five would be obvious: Ms Yellen…But these are not normal times…And this is why my preference is for Mr Summers. He is the most creative thinker around. If I prepare for four hours for a one-hour discussion with Mr Summers, it takes him 15 minutes to get up to speed, for the next 30 minutes I am holding my own, and for the last 15 he is coming up with insights that I would have missed had I spent 12 hours thinking the issue through. Unless things start getting better faster, in a year or two it will be clear that the Fed's current policy consensus is past its sell-by date.” J. Bradford DeLong in The Financial Times.
@DeanBaker13: If Larry Summers is so brilliant, how did he fail to see an $8 trillion housing bubble? Just curious.
KLEIN: The FinReg question at the Fed. “The strangest part of the increasingly bitter shadow campaign for chairman of the Federal Reserve is that the contest is not really about monetary policy. It's about financial regulation…This is why the prospect of a Summers chairmanship gives financial reformers heartburn. They think he can't be trusted to regulate Wall Street. But like many — though not all — of his former White House colleagues, Barr thinks reform-minded critics don't give Summers nearly enough credit.” Ezra Klein in Bloomberg.
SWAGEL: Better data, but not enough for the Fed. “I am still not so sure that the Fed is ready to dial back its monetary stimulus. The figures for second-quarter G.D.P. were better than expected, but a growth rate below 2 percent is still too modest to lift job creation beyond the 200,000 recent pace or to hasten the painfully slow downward progression of the still-elevated unemployment rate. There is a sense in which seeing the G.D.P. data as good news only highlights the sadly diminished vigor of the economy since the crisis.” Phillip Swagel in The New York Times.
Music recommendations interlude: Andrew Bird, “Imitosis.”

Top opinion
RUCKELSHAUS, THOMAS, REILLY, AND WHITMAN: A Republican case for climate action. “Each of us took turns over the past 43 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. We served Republican presidents, but we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally…A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington. Dealing with this political reality, President Obama's June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress.” William D. Ruckelshaus, Lee M. Thomas, William K. Reilly, and Christine Todd Whitman in The New York Times.
COCHRANE: E-Verify would be ultimate achievement in government intrusion. “E-Verify is the real monster. If this part of the bill passes, all employers will be forced to use the government-run, Web-based system that checks potential employees’ immigration status. That means, every American will have to obtain the federal government’s prior approval in order to earn a living. E-Verify might seem harmless now, but missions always creep and bureaucracies expand.” John H. Cochrane in The Wall Street Journal.
SOLTAS: Why the CBO’s deficit forecasts are too optimistic. “There’s an old joke about a physicist, a chemist and an economist stranded on a desert island. A can of soup washes up on the beach. The physicist says, “Use a rock to smash it open.” The chemist says, “Put it on the fire and let the heat burst it open.” The economist says, “Assume a can opener.” In its forecasts of budget deficits, the Congressional Budget Office is assuming a can opener: Starting in 2015, it says, three straight years of 4 percent growth in real gross domestic product will get the U.S. out of its fiscal troubles. Is this any more plausible than the castaway’s suggestion?…[T]he problem is its economic model.” Evan Soltas in Bloomberg.
REINHARDT: The sleeper in healthcare payment reform. “In late June news organizations reported on a practical application in the United States of "reference pricing" for hospital care…In the arsenal now being assembled on the payment side of health care to address rising costs, reference pricing may well turn out to be the sleeper, because it is a potentially powerful method of "putting the patient's skin in the game," the delicate phrase we use for "cost-sharing by patients." As it is able to shift significant market power from the supply side to the payment side of the health sector, reference pricing is much feared by the providers - physicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and others.” Uwe D. Reinhardt in The New York Times.
JOHNSON: Too big to fail isn’t dead yet. “Lending by the Fed to one specific company is more difficult to justify under current legislation. But the biggest and most leveraged financial companies in the United States today are all now bank-holding companies, with access to the discount window at the Fed, via their commercial banking subsidiaries.” Simon Johnson in The New York Times.
BROOKS: The neocon revival. “[I]n the 1980s, when conservatism was at its most politically and intellectually vibrant, the dominant voices in the movement celebrated Lincoln, the Progressive Era and even the New Deal. The kind of conservatism that Irving Kristol embodied was cheerful and at peace with modern America.” David Brooks in The New York Times.
Handpicked by Wonkblog interlude: This is an amazing traffic light.

2) Jobs report today
The forecast: “Payrolls rose by 185,000 workers after a 195,000 gain in June, according to the median forecast of 92 economists in a Bloomberg survey. The jobless rate fell to 7.5 percent, matching a four-year low, from 7.6 percent. Other data may show personal spending climbed in June by the most in four months.” Shobhana Chandra in Bloomberg.
Auto sales back to prerecession levels. “Americans love their cars and trucks. And in July, they bought a whole lot of them. Chrysler and Ford each reported their July sales were up 6 percent from a year earlier, while General Motors notched a 12 per-cent rise, according to Wards Auto. Some foreign automakers saw even stronger gains, including 13 percent for Toyota and 16 percent for Honda. In fact, the auto market has now completed its long slog back to pre-recession levels. Americans bought cars and trucks at a 15.6 million annual rate in July, a bit below June and about the level of December 2007, when the recession began, and up from a low of 9 million in early 2009.” Neil Irwin in The Washington Post.
The industrial recovery may be rebooting. “The Institute for Supply Management said on Thursday that its index of factory activity jumped to 55.4 percent in July from 50.9 percent in June. A reading above 50 percent indicates growth. The I.S.M. is a trade group of purchasing managers. A gauge of production soared 11.6 points to 65 percent, the highest reading since May 2004. And a measure of hiring at factories rose to its best level in a year -- the latest of several encouraging signs ahead of the July employment report, which will be released on Friday.” The Associated Press.
Explainer: This graph calls the entire economic recovery into question. Ezra Klein in The Washington Post.
New business formation bounces back; posts first increase since the recession. “After several consecutive years of decline, the country's rate of new business births has started rising again, as has the number of jobs those start-ups are creating, according to an analysis of new Census data released on Wednesday…[J]ob creation by those new firms jumped 4.3 percent after dropping 31.7 percent in the previous four years, according to the report. Among the smallest of new businesses, ones with between one and four workers, the employment jump was even higher, at 5.9 percent over 2010.” J.D. Harrison in The Washington Post.
The ratings agencies may be back at it again. “S.& P. has been giving higher grades than its big rivals to certain mortgage-backed securities just as Wall Street is eagerly trying to revive the market for these investments, according to an analysis conducted for The New York Times by Commercial Mortgage Alert, which collects data on the industry…Banks have shown a new willingness to hire S.& P. to rate their bonds, tripling its market share in the first half of 2013. Its biggest rivals have been much less likely to give higher ratings.” Nathaniel Popper in The New York Times.
A court ruled swipe fees are still too high. But they're probably going away anyway. “The credit card companies lost a round in the payment wars on Wednesday: A judge ruled that the Federal Reserve's 21-cent cap on swipe fees for debit card transactions was too high, and should be reconsidered. The retail industry cheered, since it either has to eat the cost of those fees or pass them on to consumers. But here's the question: If swipe fees are such a burden on merchants, why are they still paying them?” Lydia DePillis in The Washington Post.
U.S. oil reserves rise to highest level since 1985. “The picture of U.S. future energy supplies looked brighter Thursday after the federal Energy Information Administration said U.S. oil reserves grew by a record amount, driven by new shale discoveries…The EIA report said that "proved" oil reserves -- oil that can be extracted and marketed under current conditions -- grew by 15 percent, or almost 3.8 billion barrels, the second straight record year of increases. That brought U.S. proved oil reserves to the highest level since 1985. The agency said that U.S. proved reserves of natural gas jumped 10 percent, the second-largest annual increase since 1977.” Steven Mufson in The Washington Post.
Low wages work against labor-market optimism. “Unfortunately, the aggregate wages that go with those jobs leave something to be desired. Since the recession ended, real wage disbursements have increased by just 1% annualized and disposable personal income by a bit less. Even amid the recent pickup in hiring, the actual money in Americans’ pockets isn’t increasing all that quickly…Daniel Alpert, a managing partner at Westwood Capital, pointed out in a note last week that nearly 70% of jobs created during the second quarter were in the lowest-paying sectors or subsectors such as retail trade or leisure and hospitality.” Spencer Jakab in The Wall Street Journal.
And you thought you had seen it all interlude: How to fail your driver’s test in under ten seconds (flip the car as you’re pulling out).

3) Should you burn your Obamacare draft card?
Inside the Obamacare resistance. “Dean Clancy wants you to burn your Obamacare draft card. That there's no such thing as an Obamacare draft card is, at best, only a small problem. Clancy is a vice president at FreedomWorks, where he has spent years fighting President Obama's health-care law. But now, with a Supreme Court case and presidential election both lost, he and his allies are banking on a last-ditch campaign to undermine Obamacare: convince Americans to ignore it altogether.” Sarah Kliff in The Washington Post.
Republicans refuel efforts to cripple Obamacare. “Why do Republicans persist in their so-far futile efforts? Democrats have many theories. Republicans, they suggest, care little about the uninsured. Many, they say, dislike Mr. Obama and want him to fail…Republicans say they persist because the law is an example of government overreach and is proving unworkable. For many elected in the 2010 Republican wave, their opposition to the law is the reason they are in Congress. And, they say, voting to repeal the law is good politics, as it remains extremely unpopular among Republican voters.” Robert Pear in The New York Times.
Theory on pain is driving rules for abortions. “It challenges four decades of constitutional doctrine and is based on disputed scientific theories. Yet a push to ban abortion at 20 weeks after conception, on the theory that the fetus can feel pain at that point, has emerged as a potent new tactic of the anti-abortion movement. Advocates saw the potential of such a measure because it taps into public concern about late-stage abortions, appears to alter the rules only incrementally, and claims to be rooted in science.” Erik Eckholm in The New York Times.
In 2014, Congress gets Obamacare. Here's how they'll pay for it. “Starting in 2014, members of Congress and their staffs will have to get their health insurance through Obamacare's insurance marketplaces. But according to a regulation that the Obama administration's Office of Personnel Management plans to announce on Friday and release next week, the federal government can continue to contribute toward the cost of their health plans. The regulation comes after months of worry on Capitol Hill. The Affordable Care Act includes a provision, first proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), forcing members of Congress and their staffs to buy insurance through Obamacare. But it didn't provide a clear mechanism for them to do so.” Ezra Klein in The Washington Post.
OFA launches 'Truth Team' to defend Obamacare, other White House policies. “The non-profit associated with President Obama has established a separate Facebook and Twitter account, that will provide its self-described "truth tellers" with statistics and background they can use to tout Obamacare's benefits. While the campaign is launching during the August recess, the aides said, it would continue beyond that.” Juliet Eilperin in The Washington Post.
Oh my god this is so great interlude: A glossary of gestures for critical discussion.
4) THUD!
Bill to fund transportation, housing fails in the Senate. “Congress’s reeling budget process stumbled again Thursday as the Democratic-controlled Senate failed to advance a bill to increase spending for transportation and housing programs. The vote came one day after a companion bill to cut spending for those programs collapsed in the Republican-controlled House because of a lack of support. The twin failures show the struggle leaders of each chamber face in moving legislation, and the distance between the parties in reaching agreement on spending bills needed to keep the government operating. The vote on the Senate transportation and housing bill was 54-43, short of the 60 votes needed to cut off GOP delaying tactics and bring the bill to a final vote.” Janet Hook and Corey Boles in The Wall Street Journal.
Republicans need a budget deal. They need a budget deal badly. “The House's bill to fund transportation, housing, and urban development (THUD) was pulled from the floor on Wednesday. Thursday, the Senate bill failed to clear a filibuster as Mitch McConnell mounted an aggressive, last-ditch effort to give House Republicans cover. Absent that sudden and overwhelming political imperative, the legislation likely would've passed. But amidst all these failures, something actually is changing, and very much for the better: Republicans are coming to realize that sequestration is both a political and policy disaster for them, and they need a deal that replaces it.” Ezra Klein in The Washington Post.
…But a budget truce seems out of reach as congressional recess looms. “The House bill would have embraced the sequester, deep automatic budget cuts designed to shrink the federal government. The Senate bill would have ended it, restoring billions of dollars for housing, roads and bridges. This week, congressional Republicans tacitly rejected both approaches to next year's budget, leaving frustrated lawmakers wondering how they will manage to keep the government open past September.” Lori Montgomery in The Washington Post.
…And intra-Republican rifts make it worse. “”The group of eight lawmakers headed to the White House to find a way forward after Senate Republicans filibustered a housing and transportation spending measure, saying it violated a spending deal struck two years ago. The blockade of the Senate bill came after House Republican leaders on Wednesday gave up on a more austere version of the bill when moderate Republicans balked and said the cuts in the House measure were too deep. For more than two and a half hours, the group met with the White House chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough, senior budget officials and, for nearly an hour, with President Obama. They emerged to say they would meet again at least once during the August recess.” Jonathan Weisman and Jackie Calmes in The New York Times.
Why the House GOP's cuts to housing and transportation were so unpopular. “Community Development Block Grant funding was cut to $1.6 billion, or 47 percent below the post-sequestration 2013 level of $3 billion. By most accounts, this was the cut that doomed the bill, repelling Democrats and some moderate Republicans.” Brad Plumer in The Washington Post.
House Republicans take another bite at the farm bill. “House Republicans are proposing to double their food stamp savings to nearly $40 billion by rolling back waivers for able-bodied adults and targeting funds to states that are willing to impose greater work requirements on the parents of young children. The prime mover is Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) who helped jettison the nutrition title from the House farm bill last month and is now trying to write his own version before the House goes to conference with the Senate.” David Rogers in Politico.
NYC interlude: 100 ways to improve the subway, on a Tumblr blog.
5) UN is no longer Power-less
Samantha Power approved by Senate as ambassador to United Nations. “The Senate approved President Obama's pick for ambas-sador to the United Nations, -Samantha Power, by a vote of 87 to 10 Thursday afternoon. Power is a former foreign correspondent and foreign policy columnist who has written at length about human rights issues, genocide and war. She is the author of four books, one of which was awarded a Pulitzer Prize, and has worked as the founding executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University. She was an early supporter of Obama and has been a White House adviser” Jenna Johnson in The Washington Post.
Obama picks restructuring expert John Koskinen to head IRS. ”Koskinen oversaw the government's preparations for the year 2000 and helped lead Freddie Mac out of its financial crisis. If confirmed by the Senate, part of Koskinen's task will be to restore confidence in the IRS, which is recovering from recent scandals involving inappropriate behavior toward tax-exemption applicants and lavish spending on a conference in Anaheim, Calif.” Josh Hicks in The Washington Post.
Reading material interlude: The best sentences Wonkblog read today.
Wonkblog Roundup
The media loves covering scandal. We don't love telling you when the scandal falls apart. Ezra Klein.
McDonald's wages are rising fastest in Russia, and other facts about fast food pay. Lydia DePillis.
In 2014, Congress gets Obamacare. Here's how they'll pay for it. Ezra Klein.
'Fabulous Fab' Tourre played a bit part in the mortgage crisis. So why is he the only one paying a price? Neil Irwin.
Republicans need a budget deal. They need a budget deal bad. Ezra Klein.
A court ruled swipe fees are still too high. But they're probably going away anyway. Lydia DePillis.
Inside the Obamacare resistance. Sarah Kliff.
Why the House GOP's cuts to housing and transportation were so unpopular. Brad Plumer.
Forget Larry Summers. What if Roger Ferguson took over the Fed? Dylan Matthews.
This graph calls the entire economic recovery into question. Ezra Klein.
What kind of Fed chair would Larry Summers be? This March speech gives hints. Ylan Q. Mui.
Et Cetera
The WSJ’s interview with Sen. Harry Reid. Corey Boles in The Wall Street Journal.
Democratic divide over NSA could pose problem for Obama. Aaron Blake and Scott Wilson in The Washington Post.
FBI: We couldn’t have averted the Boston attack. Michael S. Schmidt in The New York Times.
Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail me.
Wonkbook is produced with help from Michelle Williams.