This is HUGE!
Read more
Read more


Strong health-care employment growth shouldn’t surprise anyone. Demand for labor is derived from the demand for the goods and services that people want and need. Thus, we’d expect the expansion of health coverage to boost jobs in that sector — in addition to driving historically large reductions in the number of Americans without health coverage, saving states money and slowing growth in health-care costs.But but…Obama is just subsidizing jobs in healthcare with rich people’s money! Nope, not that either:
Yet House Republicans are still trying to repeal parts of the law, claiming that “many of the key elements of Obamacare [are] harming individuals and families [and] hurting job creation.” Fox News hack O’Reilly maintains that, “While some of the poor benefit, other Americans are punished because the job market is smaller.” Some presidential candidates agree: Jeb calls the ACA “the president’s job-destroying health-care law” and Cruz’s site asserts that “Obamacare is causing millions to lose their jobs.” Cruz and Rubio aren’t even content to repeal parts of the law — they want to repeal the entire thing.
Even if we’re generous here and assume that those shouting “job killer” mean that the gains in the health-care sector are coming at the expense of the rest of the job market, there’s no evidence to support that claim, either.“Well,” injured Republicans will huff, “Obamacare is certainly turning America into a part-time nation!” We’ve addressed this in the past when it was also found to be untrue, but as a reminder:
Nor is there any evidence that Obamacare is causing a shift from full-time to part-time jobs — the number of involuntary part-time workers is actually down since 2013 (and as Dean Baker notes, the evidence that the ACA’s premium subsidies may be encouraging voluntary part-time work is a good thing), while full-time employment has been steadily rising. Again, steady job growth is surely a function of the broad employment recovery, not health reform, but it is yet another trend going the wrong way for the critics.Discussing September’s job numbers, Jason Fuhrman, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, noted, “Full-time jobs more than fully account for all job gains since early ’10, with part-time jobs holding steady.”

The modern public-opinion poll has been around since the Great Depression, when the response rate—the number of people who take a survey as a percentage of those who were asked—was more than ninety. The participation rate—the number of people who take a survey as a percentage of the population—is far lower. Election pollsters sample only a minuscule portion of the electorate, not uncommonly something on the order of a couple of thousand people out of the more than two hundred million Americans who are eligible to vote. The promise of this work is that the sample is exquisitely representative. But the lower the response rate the harder and more expensive it becomes to realize that promise, which requires both calling many more people and trying to correct for “non-response bias” by giving greater weight to the answers of people from demographic groups that are less likely to respond. Pollster.com’s Mark Blumenthal has recalled how, in the nineteen-eighties, when the response rate at the firm where he was working had fallen to about sixty per cent, people in his office said, “What will happen when it’s only twenty? We won’t be able to be in business!” A typical response rate is now in the single digits.There are real-world consequences to political polls, no matter how inaccurate. For example, only the top-polling Republican candidates take part in the televised debates during prime time. And even worse, politicians use polls to determine what issues American voters care about and what they think the government should do about them. The New Yorker explains the problems with polling and had some examples of elections that number crunchers failed to predict.

As the three Democratic
presidential candidates were attending a South Carolina candidate forum
hosted by Rachel Maddow on Friday, three Republicans running for
pretender were at a conference organized by a radical right-wing pastor
who has defended the death penalty for homosexuality. MORE



United States District Judge Richard Leon has affirmed his 2013 ruling
and has ordered the NSA to stop collecting phone records belonging to
J.J. Little and his firm J.J. Little & Associates, P.C., and to
segregate all the records collected to date so that they aren't
searched.
United States District Judge Richard Leon issued the order in Klayman v. Obama, a case in which EFF appeared as amicus curiae. Judge Leon ruled in December 2013 that the program was unconstitutional because it violated the 4th Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches. But the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit sent the case back to him when it held that the plaintiffs in the case did not have standing to sue because they were Verizon Wireless customers, not Verizon Business Network Services (VBNS) customers, and the latter is the only provider the US government has acknowledged participated in the program. The plaintiff then amended the complaint and added two more plaintiffs, J.J. Little and his firm J.J. Little & Associates, P.C., both of which are long-standing VBNS customers.
Judge Leon found that these two new plaintiffs had standing to sue the NSA both over the past phone records collection as well as the ongoing collection. He then issued a preliminary injunction barring the NSA from further collection and querying of their records that had already been collected.
