I'm very conflicted as a Laker fan. I don't want Boston to pull back ahead in title count but I'm a big fan of Jaylen Brown since his year at Cal. And it's just not easy to cheer for Pat Riley since he left LA.
I suppose I'm for Boston to advance but want Denver to take care of business.
I know it's been pointed out a million times but the party of small government and personal responsibility relentlessly going to bat for tax cheats is one of the most absurd things about our politics. If Republicans believed in anything they say they believe in then making people pay the taxes they actually owe would a huge priority. It's such a joke
I think there is a logical explanation. Many Republicans believe that 1) our politics is fundamentally broken with the “state” having been captured by the “takers”, 2) the “takers” have pushed through a morally wrong tax system with the top 1% paying 40% plus of the tax burden (which in many minds equates to our most productive citizens being strangled in their ability to conduct economic activity (freedom argument); 3) that John Galt was right and we need “leave” the system - translation not pay the illegitimate taxes. It’s a mirror image of many extreme left views - they no longer believe in legitimacy of the system so why play by the illegitimate rule designed to screw “us” to help “them”. If true the question is how do you get the marginal MAGA head to feel a significant stake in the system again.
Well, thanks for at least pondering a real explanation. This facile ‘the other side has morally inferior motivations’ is simple ingroup-outgroup behavior on the part of the commenter. In evolutionary sociology it’s called ‘moralizing perceived threat’.
It's not moralizing a perceived threat it's basic math. If you made people pay what they actually owe you could actually reduce the deficit. if you didn't care about reducing the deficit, you could actually reduce taxes on everyone including rich people because you'd have more money to go around. Instead they're just like nah cheating on your taxes is good actually. It's a weird position that doesn't advance any of their goals
Right, but EKG2’s point how is it the party of law and order encouraging *illegitimate* behavior. I was focusing on that narrower point. I think the “they don’t think the rules / institutions / authorities are legitimate because they have been captured” lens is underrated
Spot on. I so long for a conversation around “what do we want, what does it cost, how much do we want relative to other things and priorities given our values and resources”. Sadly we will be waiting a long time.
Only certain high income people though. I mean small business owners who currently pay all their taxes could have a lower tax burden if the tax cheats were forced to pay up. They could pass a revenue neutral tax cut for rich people if they funded the IRS...
Billionaires who get their money primarily from stocks aren't the ones cutting on taxes. Their income is relatively straightfoward and difficult to game. It's primarily the small and medium business owners who often have multiple income streams and many ways to categorize expenses and investments who are cutting corners.
Yes I agree with that. it's actually kind of my point. Small business owners who actually pay taxes are being fleeced by the ones who aren't. It's just very odd for republicans to be like yes that's the political constituency we need to fight for.
The upper middle class professionals are moving to the Democratic Party. Small business owners are becoming a larger part of the Republican coalition. It's interest group politics.
It is worth noting that from McCarthy's POV he came in asking for swinging cuts and didn't get them. Despite Democratic weaknesses, he wasn't negotiating from a position of strength, because of the odds he will need Democratic votes to pass this thing.
Agree that Biden dismissing the 14th was a bad move, also Biden could have strengthened his hand IMO by doing some kabuki theatre around the coin, like leaking a purposed design for a 10 billion dollar coin etc.
On this final point: does Biden really *want* the climate activists to be loudly on his side during a re-election campaign? Or does he want to appear to be saying “look, I piss both sides off a little in order to find a happy medium”?
I think having hardcore support from activists on the right or left either one may be a net negative, for any sitting president who won’t face a legitimately threatening primary challenge.
I think the answer is that Biden does not want the climate activists to be loudly on his side, and does want them to criticize him for being too moderate.
That said, there's criticism and there's criticism. He does not want them going around Ralph Nader-style, literally telling young people not to vote for him. He does not want them doing counterproductive protests like blocking streets or whatever - even if he's the target of those protests, if the protests annoy regular people, they'll blame Dems collectively.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Great quote that (depressingly) seems fully generalizable to all successful political movements, but how does it apply to the environmentalist comment?
I think it's a great quote insofar as it describes a common dynamic of political ideologies. It's bad insofar as sees conservatism as a singular offender.
Once the debt ceiling bill goes through, Democrats in the Senate should pass a "clean" bill that basically takes this kind of brinkmanship off the table.
Make the Republicans vote for debt ceiling nonsense itself, not for or against a specific deal.
The problem is, McCarthy would never put such a bill up for a vote in the House in the first place.
Ideally, there would be some rule where anything that pass one body of Congress gets an automatic up or down vote in the other body, but that's not the way the system works.
>Democrats in the Senate should pass a "clean" bill that basically takes this kind of brinkmanship off the table.<
That accomplishes nothing/little. Polls suggests strong majorities of Americans favored pairing the debt ceiling increase with budget cuts. MAGA would demagogue the fuck out of a debt ceiling elimination bill. DEMOCRATS WANT TO PRINT MONEY SO WE CAN BE LIKE ZIMBABWE. YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS! WHY CAN'T TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRATS DO THE SAME? Yada yada.
Republicans are fully aware of the ignorance of large swaths of the electorate on these matters, and play their cards accordingly.
When they one day have a trifecta, Democrats should absolutely get rid of the inane debt ceiling procedure. Because the current status quo is destructive and dangerous. But just holding a political theater vote does no good, and would likely hurt them.
This is what I wish people realized about the coin. If Biden minted a coin for a trillion dollars and deposited at the fed, the dumbest voters in America would be convinced he’s doing a hyperinflation. And there are enough of them to lose the election
If the coin is the difference between 4% and 14% unemployment next summer, you do the coin (assuming courts allow it). But yes, you're right to point out that there'd be a political cost to saving the economy. Doing good things is often a thankless task in politics, because voters cannot visit the parallel universe where you dropped the ball.
Right, minting the coin is better than a self-inflicted Great Depression. But it’s worse than making a deal with republicans that mostly gives up nothing.
Well, mining the coin passes cost benefit analysis in my view no matter the alternative *IF* it passes muster with the judiciary. Were that to occur, we'd finally defuse a ticking time bomb that threatens to one day do great damage. That would be worth paying a political price for!
The problem is we don't know what the courts will say, so, absent that knowledge, it seems awfully risky to butt heads with the debt ceiling hostage takers if the ransom is low, as it appears to be this time.
>part of this deal is a modest trim to Democrats’ plans to fund the tax police
My biggest concern coming into these negotiations was that the Republicans would gut the IRS funding, so I really hope the trimming is truly modest.
There was quite a bit of additional spending on IRS operations (roughly 25 billion) that I think could see cuts without seriously hampering the agency. Cuts to enforcement would be galling (tax cheats are the absolute worst) and killing the business technology/customer service improvements (including potentially eliminating the "Direct e-file" task force that would provide an end run around Turbo Tax and HR Block) would be a massive disappointment from a good governance perspective.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what the details are
If anything, it shows his commitment to cash-only welfare transfers. I applaud Matt for giving her cigarettes, and it makes him seem more moral in my eyes.
It's one thing to say that welfare should be paid out in cash. It's another to sabotage the policy choice embedded in a current welfare program, especially when that policy choice-- we should discourage people from smoking and killing themselves-- is a perfectly legitimate one and, indeed, the sort of wonky thing that Matt himself would endorse if imposed on other people through other programs.
I don’t have a strong conviction but it seems like when you’re letting people buy soda with SNAP benefits, then the commitment to discouraging people from killing themselves isn’t really there and we’re just dickering over price. (Which can be worth dickering over!)
This is very true. It’s a valid question to raise, and is really hard for me to answer: do I love markets more than saving people’s lives from cigarettes? It’s very tough and I’m not sure which is right. I don’t fault Matt for choosing markets over her life.
I'm gonna come down pretty hard on team "acquired addictions subvert the preference tradeoffs and rationality on which assumptions of welfare-increasing laissez-faire market efficiency rest and pretty easily meet the rebuttable presumption against paternalistic intervention." Cigarette smokers aren't in a great position to say "why am I doing this socially-sanctioned, extremely expensive activity that makes me and all my stuff smell terrible and is awful for my health? Why don't I just stop?" because despite the fact that for basically everyone (bar maybe schizophrenics) this is a trivially easy and utterly one-sided calculus *even mostly ignoring externalities,* they're addicted to nicotine.
If people are persistently doing things that appear to be individually welfare-reducing notwithstanding, you probably have a revealed preference that means it's actually welfare-increasing in context, a market failure, or a failure of individual rationality. *In general* the presumption is that you look to the first two, but you're not obligated to wear dogmatic blinders that prevent you from looking at the third. "Addictive drugs [or other activities, like gambling] result in self-destructive welfare-reducing behavior by the addicted" isn't some kind of exotic or unknown reason to justify paternalistic intervention - to the contrary, it's extremely well-attested!
it needs to be unsanctioned socially, because America's mental health state of young people is not normal...kids these days isolate with video games and aren't fucking, aren't making non-digital friends....but how do you meet people if you don't smoke? It's unpossible. College would have been an awful experience without being able to smoke on the porch of the dorm, I would have made no friends. And lest we forget the late nights in Waffle House in high school. I'm not against some sin taxes on it, but nothing that makes packs cost >$8. And folks should get cigarette stamps as well as food stamps
At my old Kroger back home that we affectionately called the Stab 'n' Grab, I would often encounter folks offering to buy my groceries with their food stamps. As I think people also need rent money as well as food money, I was happy to do so, as that meant no sales tax on my food. Win-win, especially as I was a poor student at the time and that 9.x% sales tax was a bitch.
This was 20 years ago, people change in that time span, and I've always thought that this was a good first hand example that Matt's shared several times to point out flaws in a program that can be exploited.
I too demand absolute unwavering moral and ethical perfection from all of my internet pundits at all times. I expect some form of restitution to society; perhaps by ratting out scofflaws who are parked illegally.
honestly if the only actual SNAP work requirement change is moving the existing work requirement age max from 49->54 then I dont think its the end of the world but at the same time it still feels dumb to give up anything there when the coin or fancy bonds exist
Also can anyone remind me what the deal is for these food stamp recipients when there are no jobs? Or is this some kind of workforce conscription program for Amazon ...
to answer your general question, participation in state work development programs generally counts towards work requirements but specifically the rules are that:
SNAP requirements for everyone 16-59 are that you must meet one of the following rules:
1) Already working at least 30 hours a week
2) Meeting work requirements for another program (TANF or unemployment compensation)
3) Taking care of a child under 6 or an incapacitated person
4) Unable to work due to a physical or mental limitation
5) Participating regularly in an alcohol or drug treatment program
6) Studying in school or a training program at least half-time
currently for those 18-49 who are able to work, not pregnant, do not have a dependent under 18 in their home and who are not exempted by the top list must also do one of the following:
1) Work at least 80 hours a month. Work can be for pay, for goods or services, unpaid, or as a volunteer;
2) Participate in a work program at least 80 hours a month. A work program could be SNAP Employment and Training or another federal, state, or local work program;
3) Participate in a combination of work and work program hours for a total of at least 80 hours a month;
4) Participate in workfare for the number of hours assigned to you each month (the number of hours will depend on the amount of your SNAP benefit.)
I worked at a non profit that administered the job training/work seeking half of TANF for my state. If the job seeker cannot find work within a short period after completing training requirements, there are avenues like volunteer work, providing child care, education programs including GED, college, or specific training for licensing into a chosen field.
Basically, if the participant keeps showing up to appointments and job search functions, we would never let them be removed from support until they had used all their benefits, which is often a period up to two years out of any given four years (iirc).
It is worth noting that Democrats jammed 2 years of discretionary spending growth into last year’s omnibus so the ‘give’ here on nominal spending is basically nil.
I am genuinely impressed with Biden’s ability to get bipartisan legislation passed with minimal drama.
Thus ends the latest episode in this long-running political show. It followed a similar arc to most others, with the political party that doesn't hold the Presidency winning some minor and transient policy points while a minority of the population worries needlessly. There will be another episode in 3-4 years.
Even if we resolved it this time, ideally one would like to avoid this level of unnecessary risk to the economy. In 2025 whoever’s president should either use the 14th or work with Congress to abolish it. Republicans could’ve extracted the same concessions they’re going to get now through the regular appropriations process; they would lose the ability to have the same fight they ducked now about entitlements, but I think that’s worth it to the reduce the tail risks.
The more times we let Republicans drive us to the edge of the cliff without them taking us over Thelma and Louise style, the higher the probability that this game of Russian roulette will absolutely end in disaster sometime down the line.
This outcome upsets me so much that I've lost all control over my metaphor usage.
What exactly are the tail risks of entitlements? I assume it means you'd like older Americans to die off, saving trillions for kids to get awesome apartments in Brooklyn. We get your vibe.
I agree with all of Matt's points, except this one:
>The president could — and should! — have said that his preference was to avoid using those options because of his limited confidence in the courts and because the financial system doesn’t like wackiness<
No, negotiation 101 suggests that, if Biden were serious about using the threat of extra-constitutional options to strengthen his position, he needed to exhibit (head fake, that is) maximum confidence about the legality of these moves, and maximum determination/willingness to use them. Don't allow in even a scintilla of doubt that you're fully prepared to use a platinum coin, or a consol bond, or what have you.
Yes, the "preference" was that he wanted McCarthy to be statesmanlike legislator he could be. Hopefully, McCarthy's base will revolt and Biden can still use the coin.
Biden being very good on substance and pretty bad on public messaging is a common theme for his first 2 1/3 years. It seems mostly inherent to his skills, governing style, and, uh, energy levels, but I wonder how much of a pivot towards messaging he is able to do as election considerations start to heat up.
I think messaging while in office and messaging in a campaign are two different skills. The 2020 Biden campaign's messaging was fine and there's no reason to think the 2024 campaign's will be any different.
I dunno, his messaging seems tailored to an overall theme of “quietly competent.”
Which I think is probably a solid play from a “mushy middle” or “swing voter” perspective. If we can drive inflation down a bit further without cratering the economy, then that messaging will pan out well IMO.
We all knew they should have raised the ceiling in the lake duck. There’s really no way to view this except that senior Dems and WH were wanting a bipartisan deal. So the ‘tactics’ of this are either worse or better than Matt describes depending on your view of the deal and politicians democratic responsibilities.
Matt knows the average slow boring subscriber has no Saturday night plans -- thanks Matt!
Some of us are out here SAVING HYRULE on our Saturday nights. I’m currently on the newspaper quest.
Democracy dies in darkness - Link
It’s the summer of very good video games. My weekends are toast.
Make Hyrule Great Again!
Drain The Swamp!
(going all the way back to my formative Zelda game, ALTTP, on that one.)
I am cheered that this is how I got this news and I can now stop caring.
Same!
A lot of us are fortunate that a basketball game is on because watching that makes it seem less pathetic.
Ok that game was worth watching.
My rule for watching NBA games is to turn it on only in the last tenth of a second.
I'm very conflicted as a Laker fan. I don't want Boston to pull back ahead in title count but I'm a big fan of Jaylen Brown since his year at Cal. And it's just not easy to cheer for Pat Riley since he left LA.
I suppose I'm for Boston to advance but want Denver to take care of business.
Don't worry. No way in hell Boston (or Miami) beats the Nuggets.
Not me, I was the apolitical "I just want to grill" guy enjoying a vacation with family, and thought I could call it a night in that mode. Alas...
Meh. Some of us have MLS to watch.
Sunday morning for me.
I know it's been pointed out a million times but the party of small government and personal responsibility relentlessly going to bat for tax cheats is one of the most absurd things about our politics. If Republicans believed in anything they say they believe in then making people pay the taxes they actually owe would a huge priority. It's such a joke
I think there is a logical explanation. Many Republicans believe that 1) our politics is fundamentally broken with the “state” having been captured by the “takers”, 2) the “takers” have pushed through a morally wrong tax system with the top 1% paying 40% plus of the tax burden (which in many minds equates to our most productive citizens being strangled in their ability to conduct economic activity (freedom argument); 3) that John Galt was right and we need “leave” the system - translation not pay the illegitimate taxes. It’s a mirror image of many extreme left views - they no longer believe in legitimacy of the system so why play by the illegitimate rule designed to screw “us” to help “them”. If true the question is how do you get the marginal MAGA head to feel a significant stake in the system again.
Well, thanks for at least pondering a real explanation. This facile ‘the other side has morally inferior motivations’ is simple ingroup-outgroup behavior on the part of the commenter. In evolutionary sociology it’s called ‘moralizing perceived threat’.
It's not moralizing a perceived threat it's basic math. If you made people pay what they actually owe you could actually reduce the deficit. if you didn't care about reducing the deficit, you could actually reduce taxes on everyone including rich people because you'd have more money to go around. Instead they're just like nah cheating on your taxes is good actually. It's a weird position that doesn't advance any of their goals
Right, but EKG2’s point how is it the party of law and order encouraging *illegitimate* behavior. I was focusing on that narrower point. I think the “they don’t think the rules / institutions / authorities are legitimate because they have been captured” lens is underrated
Spot on. I so long for a conversation around “what do we want, what does it cost, how much do we want relative to other things and priorities given our values and resources”. Sadly we will be waiting a long time.
No. Small government means small tax bills for high income people. Everything else is downstream.
Only certain high income people though. I mean small business owners who currently pay all their taxes could have a lower tax burden if the tax cheats were forced to pay up. They could pass a revenue neutral tax cut for rich people if they funded the IRS...
Billionaires who get their money primarily from stocks aren't the ones cutting on taxes. Their income is relatively straightfoward and difficult to game. It's primarily the small and medium business owners who often have multiple income streams and many ways to categorize expenses and investments who are cutting corners.
Yes I agree with that. it's actually kind of my point. Small business owners who actually pay taxes are being fleeced by the ones who aren't. It's just very odd for republicans to be like yes that's the political constituency we need to fight for.
Yes that is pretty much what I meant, although there are margins I suspect of dubious classifications pretty high up the income scale.
The upper middle class professionals are moving to the Democratic Party. Small business owners are becoming a larger part of the Republican coalition. It's interest group politics.
I think our two comments are quite related.
The GOP sees the IRS being weaponized against conservatives.
That's why the funding cuts
It is worth noting that from McCarthy's POV he came in asking for swinging cuts and didn't get them. Despite Democratic weaknesses, he wasn't negotiating from a position of strength, because of the odds he will need Democratic votes to pass this thing.
Agree that Biden dismissing the 14th was a bad move, also Biden could have strengthened his hand IMO by doing some kabuki theatre around the coin, like leaking a purposed design for a 10 billion dollar coin etc.
On this final point: does Biden really *want* the climate activists to be loudly on his side during a re-election campaign? Or does he want to appear to be saying “look, I piss both sides off a little in order to find a happy medium”?
I think having hardcore support from activists on the right or left either one may be a net negative, for any sitting president who won’t face a legitimately threatening primary challenge.
I think the answer is that Biden does not want the climate activists to be loudly on his side, and does want them to criticize him for being too moderate.
That said, there's criticism and there's criticism. He does not want them going around Ralph Nader-style, literally telling young people not to vote for him. He does not want them doing counterproductive protests like blocking streets or whatever - even if he's the target of those protests, if the protests annoy regular people, they'll blame Dems collectively.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Great quote that (depressingly) seems fully generalizable to all successful political movements, but how does it apply to the environmentalist comment?
I don't think it is that great of a quote to be honest.
I think it's a great quote insofar as it describes a common dynamic of political ideologies. It's bad insofar as sees conservatism as a singular offender.
I meant to reply to the comment above it, about the IRS enforcement. Not sure how it got onto this comment.
Why is this quote so popular all of sudden?
Yeah. Sister Souljah.
Dark Brandon wins again
“You offer to relinquish your planetary self-destruct bomb for 2 years, if I but… kick this puppy?”
[Dons shades. Kicks puppy to literal pieces]
Once the debt ceiling bill goes through, Democrats in the Senate should pass a "clean" bill that basically takes this kind of brinkmanship off the table.
Make the Republicans vote for debt ceiling nonsense itself, not for or against a specific deal.
The problem is, McCarthy would never put such a bill up for a vote in the House in the first place.
Ideally, there would be some rule where anything that pass one body of Congress gets an automatic up or down vote in the other body, but that's not the way the system works.
>Democrats in the Senate should pass a "clean" bill that basically takes this kind of brinkmanship off the table.<
That accomplishes nothing/little. Polls suggests strong majorities of Americans favored pairing the debt ceiling increase with budget cuts. MAGA would demagogue the fuck out of a debt ceiling elimination bill. DEMOCRATS WANT TO PRINT MONEY SO WE CAN BE LIKE ZIMBABWE. YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS! WHY CAN'T TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRATS DO THE SAME? Yada yada.
Republicans are fully aware of the ignorance of large swaths of the electorate on these matters, and play their cards accordingly.
When they one day have a trifecta, Democrats should absolutely get rid of the inane debt ceiling procedure. Because the current status quo is destructive and dangerous. But just holding a political theater vote does no good, and would likely hurt them.
"When they one day have a trifecta, Democrats should absolutely get rid of the inane debt ceiling procedure."
[Ron Howard Narration: But they won't.]
This is what I wish people realized about the coin. If Biden minted a coin for a trillion dollars and deposited at the fed, the dumbest voters in America would be convinced he’s doing a hyperinflation. And there are enough of them to lose the election
If the coin is the difference between 4% and 14% unemployment next summer, you do the coin (assuming courts allow it). But yes, you're right to point out that there'd be a political cost to saving the economy. Doing good things is often a thankless task in politics, because voters cannot visit the parallel universe where you dropped the ball.
Right, minting the coin is better than a self-inflicted Great Depression. But it’s worse than making a deal with republicans that mostly gives up nothing.
Well, mining the coin passes cost benefit analysis in my view no matter the alternative *IF* it passes muster with the judiciary. Were that to occur, we'd finally defuse a ticking time bomb that threatens to one day do great damage. That would be worth paying a political price for!
The problem is we don't know what the courts will say, so, absent that knowledge, it seems awfully risky to butt heads with the debt ceiling hostage takers if the ransom is low, as it appears to be this time.
It’s maybe worth paying the political price to you, an outside observer, but not to the political actors that would actually pay that price.
>part of this deal is a modest trim to Democrats’ plans to fund the tax police
My biggest concern coming into these negotiations was that the Republicans would gut the IRS funding, so I really hope the trimming is truly modest.
There was quite a bit of additional spending on IRS operations (roughly 25 billion) that I think could see cuts without seriously hampering the agency. Cuts to enforcement would be galling (tax cheats are the absolute worst) and killing the business technology/customer service improvements (including potentially eliminating the "Direct e-file" task force that would provide an end run around Turbo Tax and HR Block) would be a massive disappointment from a good governance perspective.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what the details are
Looks like the IRS reduction is $10 billion out of the $80 billion.
Oof, painful but hopefully not devastating.
I think Matt pointed out earlier that it's probably impossible for the IRS to hire as many people as quickly as they would like to anyway.
Pretty disappointing that Matt helped a neighbor on food stamps get cancer sticks through low level fraud.
If anything, it shows his commitment to cash-only welfare transfers. I applaud Matt for giving her cigarettes, and it makes him seem more moral in my eyes.
It's one thing to say that welfare should be paid out in cash. It's another to sabotage the policy choice embedded in a current welfare program, especially when that policy choice-- we should discourage people from smoking and killing themselves-- is a perfectly legitimate one and, indeed, the sort of wonky thing that Matt himself would endorse if imposed on other people through other programs.
I don’t have a strong conviction but it seems like when you’re letting people buy soda with SNAP benefits, then the commitment to discouraging people from killing themselves isn’t really there and we’re just dickering over price. (Which can be worth dickering over!)
This is very true. It’s a valid question to raise, and is really hard for me to answer: do I love markets more than saving people’s lives from cigarettes? It’s very tough and I’m not sure which is right. I don’t fault Matt for choosing markets over her life.
I'm gonna come down pretty hard on team "acquired addictions subvert the preference tradeoffs and rationality on which assumptions of welfare-increasing laissez-faire market efficiency rest and pretty easily meet the rebuttable presumption against paternalistic intervention." Cigarette smokers aren't in a great position to say "why am I doing this socially-sanctioned, extremely expensive activity that makes me and all my stuff smell terrible and is awful for my health? Why don't I just stop?" because despite the fact that for basically everyone (bar maybe schizophrenics) this is a trivially easy and utterly one-sided calculus *even mostly ignoring externalities,* they're addicted to nicotine.
If people are persistently doing things that appear to be individually welfare-reducing notwithstanding, you probably have a revealed preference that means it's actually welfare-increasing in context, a market failure, or a failure of individual rationality. *In general* the presumption is that you look to the first two, but you're not obligated to wear dogmatic blinders that prevent you from looking at the third. "Addictive drugs [or other activities, like gambling] result in self-destructive welfare-reducing behavior by the addicted" isn't some kind of exotic or unknown reason to justify paternalistic intervention - to the contrary, it's extremely well-attested!
it needs to be unsanctioned socially, because America's mental health state of young people is not normal...kids these days isolate with video games and aren't fucking, aren't making non-digital friends....but how do you meet people if you don't smoke? It's unpossible. College would have been an awful experience without being able to smoke on the porch of the dorm, I would have made no friends. And lest we forget the late nights in Waffle House in high school. I'm not against some sin taxes on it, but nothing that makes packs cost >$8. And folks should get cigarette stamps as well as food stamps
Sure — do you intend to reduce cigarette taxes? The *social* harms of cigarettes are not particularly large.
Meh, then everyone just starts bumming and walking down the street smoking a cigarette becomes constant harassment
At my old Kroger back home that we affectionately called the Stab 'n' Grab, I would often encounter folks offering to buy my groceries with their food stamps. As I think people also need rent money as well as food money, I was happy to do so, as that meant no sales tax on my food. Win-win, especially as I was a poor student at the time and that 9.x% sales tax was a bitch.
This was 20 years ago, people change in that time span, and I've always thought that this was a good first hand example that Matt's shared several times to point out flaws in a program that can be exploited.
I too demand absolute unwavering moral and ethical perfection from all of my internet pundits at all times. I expect some form of restitution to society; perhaps by ratting out scofflaws who are parked illegally.
Sometimes we learn about ourselves through the follies of our youth.
I mean, he was basically a kid. Do you mean that you're disappointed that Matt didn't specifically disavow this earlier actions?
If the neighbor's sixteen I'm on board with your objection. But if she's sixty? I dunno. I think I'm on team libertarian for this one...
How did you procure liquor when in high school?
I didn't.
Good God! How did you make it?!
Those "rich tax cheats" think their violations of the law are also low-level and they are merely doing what everyone else is doing.
Maybe not the richest ones, but certainly a lot of people who don't report stuff accurately to the IRS feel that way.
A secret night time post?! What does this mean for the economy...
20% more slow boring posts this week for the same price… inflation is over!
What’s the opposite of shrinkflation?
honestly if the only actual SNAP work requirement change is moving the existing work requirement age max from 49->54 then I dont think its the end of the world but at the same time it still feels dumb to give up anything there when the coin or fancy bonds exist
Also can anyone remind me what the deal is for these food stamp recipients when there are no jobs? Or is this some kind of workforce conscription program for Amazon ...
to answer your general question, participation in state work development programs generally counts towards work requirements but specifically the rules are that:
SNAP requirements for everyone 16-59 are that you must meet one of the following rules:
1) Already working at least 30 hours a week
2) Meeting work requirements for another program (TANF or unemployment compensation)
3) Taking care of a child under 6 or an incapacitated person
4) Unable to work due to a physical or mental limitation
5) Participating regularly in an alcohol or drug treatment program
6) Studying in school or a training program at least half-time
currently for those 18-49 who are able to work, not pregnant, do not have a dependent under 18 in their home and who are not exempted by the top list must also do one of the following:
1) Work at least 80 hours a month. Work can be for pay, for goods or services, unpaid, or as a volunteer;
2) Participate in a work program at least 80 hours a month. A work program could be SNAP Employment and Training or another federal, state, or local work program;
3) Participate in a combination of work and work program hours for a total of at least 80 hours a month;
4) Participate in workfare for the number of hours assigned to you each month (the number of hours will depend on the amount of your SNAP benefit.)
rules are found here: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements
I worked at a non profit that administered the job training/work seeking half of TANF for my state. If the job seeker cannot find work within a short period after completing training requirements, there are avenues like volunteer work, providing child care, education programs including GED, college, or specific training for licensing into a chosen field.
Basically, if the participant keeps showing up to appointments and job search functions, we would never let them be removed from support until they had used all their benefits, which is often a period up to two years out of any given four years (iirc).
It is worth noting that Democrats jammed 2 years of discretionary spending growth into last year’s omnibus so the ‘give’ here on nominal spending is basically nil.
I am genuinely impressed with Biden’s ability to get bipartisan legislation passed with minimal drama.
Thus ends the latest episode in this long-running political show. It followed a similar arc to most others, with the political party that doesn't hold the Presidency winning some minor and transient policy points while a minority of the population worries needlessly. There will be another episode in 3-4 years.
Even if we resolved it this time, ideally one would like to avoid this level of unnecessary risk to the economy. In 2025 whoever’s president should either use the 14th or work with Congress to abolish it. Republicans could’ve extracted the same concessions they’re going to get now through the regular appropriations process; they would lose the ability to have the same fight they ducked now about entitlements, but I think that’s worth it to the reduce the tail risks.
The more times we let Republicans drive us to the edge of the cliff without them taking us over Thelma and Louise style, the higher the probability that this game of Russian roulette will absolutely end in disaster sometime down the line.
This outcome upsets me so much that I've lost all control over my metaphor usage.
This should be eliminated by the next unified, Democratic government. It is a needless danger with no benefit.
What exactly are the tail risks of entitlements? I assume it means you'd like older Americans to die off, saving trillions for kids to get awesome apartments in Brooklyn. We get your vibe.
I think he means the tail risks associated with either a government shutdown or some version of skipped interest payments on government securities.
I agree with all of Matt's points, except this one:
>The president could — and should! — have said that his preference was to avoid using those options because of his limited confidence in the courts and because the financial system doesn’t like wackiness<
No, negotiation 101 suggests that, if Biden were serious about using the threat of extra-constitutional options to strengthen his position, he needed to exhibit (head fake, that is) maximum confidence about the legality of these moves, and maximum determination/willingness to use them. Don't allow in even a scintilla of doubt that you're fully prepared to use a platinum coin, or a consol bond, or what have you.
Yes, the "preference" was that he wanted McCarthy to be statesmanlike legislator he could be. Hopefully, McCarthy's base will revolt and Biden can still use the coin.
Biden being very good on substance and pretty bad on public messaging is a common theme for his first 2 1/3 years. It seems mostly inherent to his skills, governing style, and, uh, energy levels, but I wonder how much of a pivot towards messaging he is able to do as election considerations start to heat up.
I think messaging while in office and messaging in a campaign are two different skills. The 2020 Biden campaign's messaging was fine and there's no reason to think the 2024 campaign's will be any different.
I dunno, his messaging seems tailored to an overall theme of “quietly competent.”
Which I think is probably a solid play from a “mushy middle” or “swing voter” perspective. If we can drive inflation down a bit further without cratering the economy, then that messaging will pan out well IMO.
We all knew they should have raised the ceiling in the lake duck. There’s really no way to view this except that senior Dems and WH were wanting a bipartisan deal. So the ‘tactics’ of this are either worse or better than Matt describes depending on your view of the deal and politicians democratic responsibilities.