The debt ceiling showdown is essentially over. But another manufactured crisis is stalking the recovery.
We are not deadbeats! We are not deadbeats! We are not, well, you get the point.
With the Treasury fast running out of "extraordinary measures" to keep the government from hitting the debt ceiling, and consequently defaulting on its obligations (and maybe the debt too), House Republicans voted to "suspend" the debt ceiling until May 19 -- which, as the Bipartisan Policy Center points out, means raising the debt ceiling until at least August. That's right: a three-month suspension is actually a six-month increase. Remember, there are really two limits when it comes to the debt limit. The first is when the Treasury "hits" the debt ceiling, and the second is when the Treasury really hits the debt ceiling. In other words, the former is when the Treasury has to resort to accounting shenanigans, those "extraordinary measures," to avoid the debt limit, and the latter is when those accounting shenanigans are no longer enough. The Republican plan suspends the debt ceiling until May 19, at which point 1) it will be raised by as much as the government borrows between then and now (probably $450 billion), and 2) the clock will re-set on the Treasury's extraordinary measures. Default day won't come until early August.
Not that default day will ever come. House Republicans don't actually want to play Russian roulette with Treasury bonds, and will raise -- or, if they prefer, "suspend" -- the debt ceiling again when the time comes. And that won't be long in coming. The sequester kicks in on March 1, and the continuing resolution that funds the government runs out on March 27, setting up Fiscal Cliff 2: This Time's It's Budget-y, with some kind of longer-term debt ceiling hike almost certainly figuring into the final deal. If history is any guide, Republicans will demand some smaller cuts in return for not shutting the government down, and try to turn the sequester into more palatable, for them, spending cuts.
For those of you who have trouble keeping all of our manufactured crises straight, the sequester is the $1.2 trillion of purposely painful cuts over the next decade, which was supposed to encourage the super-committee -- remember that one? -- to reach some kind of alternative, long-term debt deal. It didn't, and now Congress is left with a giant pile of automatic spending cuts it doesn't want. As you can see in the chart below from the Bipartisan Policy Center, it would cut almost half a trillion from defense, more than a quarter trillion from discretionary spending (which is already at 40-year lows), and $92 billion from Medicare.
As Jonathan Chait of New York points out, John Boehner has tried to claim the leverage in the upcoming sequester battle by saying he and his caucus really don't mind if it goes into effect. Maybe ... although it strains credulity that a party that has criticized Chuck Hagel for his willingness to cut defense spending doesn't care about cutting defense spending. The operative questions in this game of fiscal chicken are whether President Obama and House Republicans can find mutually agreeable cuts to replace the sequester cuts, and whether they will postpone whatever cuts come out of this latest (though certainly not last) cliff. The first matters more when it comes to protecting the recovery, while the second gets at the deep philosophical divide between the two parties. The risk, of course, is that wrangling over the latter prevents a deal on the former, and that the sequester subsequently starts on schedule, rather than at a later, more opportune, date.
With the default caucus within the Republican party fading into irrelevance, the specter of missing an interest payment on Treasury bonds has thankfully receded. Now we just have to worry about too much austerity too soon.
Hooray, we're not a banana republic. But we still might become Europe.
It’s a paradox: Shouldn’t the most accomplished be well equipped to make choices that maximize life satisfaction?
There are three things, once one’s basic needs are satisfied, that academic literature points to as the ingredients for happiness: having meaningful social relationships, being good at whatever it is one spends one’s days doing, and having the freedom to make life decisions independently.
But research into happiness has also yielded something a little less obvious: Being better educated, richer, or more accomplished doesn’t do much to predict whether someone will be happy. In fact, it might mean someone is less likely to be satisfied with life.
That second finding is the puzzle that Raj Raghunathan, a professor of marketing at The University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business, tries to make sense of in his recent book, If You’re So Smart, Why Aren’t You Happy?Raghunathan’s writing does fall under the category of self-help (with all of the pep talks and progress worksheets that that entails), but his commitment to scientific research serves as ballast for the genre’s more glib tendencies.
A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.
As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.
In Trump’s aftermath, his enemies on the right will have to take stock and propose a meaningful alternative vision for the GOP’s future.
Donald Trump’s big victories in the Mid-Atlantic primaries don’t represent quite the end of the ballgame—but they come damn close.
And now Donald Trump’s many and fierce opponents in the Republican Party and the conservative movement face the hour of decision. Trump looks ever more certain to be the party nominee. Yet not perhaps since George McGovern in 1972 has a presumptive nominee so signally failed to carry the most committed members of his party with him.
So what happens now to those who regard themselves as party thought-leaders? Do they submit? Or do they continue to resist?
Resistance now means something more—and more dangerous—than tapping out #NeverTrump on Twitter. It means working to defeat Trump even knowing that the almost certain beneficiary will be Hillary Clinton.
There’s a common perception that women siphon off the wealth of their exes and go on to live in comfort. It’s wrong.
A 38-year-old woman living in Everett, Washington recently told me that nine years ago, she had a well-paying job, immaculate credit, substantial savings, and a happy marriage. When her first daughter was born, she and her husband decided that she would quit her job in publishing to stay home with the baby. She loved being a mother and homemaker, and when another daughter came, she gave up the idea of going back to work.
Seven years later, her husband told her to leave their house, and filed for a divorce she couldn’t afford. “He said he was tired of my medical issues, and unwilling to work on things,” she said, citing her severe rheumatoid arthritis and OCD, both of which she manages with medication. “He kicked me out of my own house, with no job and no home, and then my only recourse was to lawyer up. I’m paying them on credit.” (Some of the men and women quoted in this article have been kept anonymous because they were discussing sensitive financial matters, some of them involving ongoing legal disputes.)
To find out, scientists collected poop from thousands of people—but they ended up with more questions than answers.
There are tens of trillions of bacteria in my gut and they are different from those in yours. Why?
This is a really basic question about the human microbiome and, rather vexingly, we still don’t have a good answer. Sure, we know some of the things that influence the roll call of species—diet and antibiotics, to name a few—but their relative importance is unclear and the list is far from complete. That bodes poorly for any attempt to work out whether these microbes are involved in diseases, and whether they can be tweaked to improve our health.
Two new studies have tried to address the problem. They’re the largest microbiome studies thus far published, looking at 1,135 Dutch adults and 1,106 Belgians respectively. Both looked at how hundreds of factors affect the microbiome, including age, height, weight, sleep, medical history, smoking, allergies, blood levels of various molecules, and a long list of foods. Both found dozens of factors that affect either the overall diversity of microbial species, or the abundance of particular ones. And encouragingly, their respective lists overlap considerably.
Nearly half of Americans would have trouble finding $400 to pay for an emergency. I’m one of them.
Since 2013,the Federal Reserve Board has conducted a survey to “monitor the financial and economic status of American consumers.” Most of the data in the latest survey, frankly, are less than earth-shattering: 49 percent of part-time workers would prefer to work more hours at their current wage; 29 percent of Americans expect to earn a higher income in the coming year; 43 percent of homeowners who have owned their home for at least a year believe its value has increased. But the answer to one question was astonishing. The Fed asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who knew?
Could the Islamic State's recent failures signal its demise?
In 2014, ISIS racked up a series of stunning successes as it pushed through Iraq and Syria, gaining momentum and new recruits with each victory. But in recent weeks, Syrian government forces liberated the city of Palmyra from ISIS, signifying a broader retreat for the extremist group over the past year. Can ISIS survive the label of loser?
Who could have foreseen that within a decade, between 2004 and 2014, the terrorist group al-Qaeda in Iraq would transform into ISIS, outline an apocalyptic vision of the End Times, reintroduce slavery, embrace war without limits, take on the world’s greatest powers, and conquer a mini-empire spanning swaths of Syria and Iraq—with spin-off affiliates infiltrating Libya, Nigeria, and elsewhere?
The U.S. president talks through his hardest decisions about America’s role in the world.
Friday, August 30, 2013, the day the feckless Barack Obama brought to a premature end America’s reign as the world’s sole indispensable superpower—or, alternatively, the day the sagacious Barack Obama peered into the Middle Eastern abyss and stepped back from the consuming void—began with a thundering speech given on Obama’s behalf by his secretary of state, John Kerry, in Washington, D.C. The subject of Kerry’s uncharacteristically Churchillian remarks, delivered in the Treaty Room at the State Department, was the gassing of civilians by the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.
Why hasn’t the Texas senator managed to unite the Republican Party in opposition to Donald Trump? It’s not complicated.
Former House Speaker John Boehner seems to be enjoying his retirement—and wouldn’t you, after what he went through in Washington? One reason for his buoyant mood, besides the chance to cut grass, is the opportunity to stay far, far away from Senator Ted Cruz.
“I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life,” Boehner added. He said he would not vote for Cruz in a general election, though he would vote for his fellow tangerine-tinted Republican Donald Trump.
The Nobel-winning economist discusses the Fed, the election, and the role of economists in fixing inequality.
In the ongoing conversation about the growing divide between the rich and poor, there are few voices as prominent as the Columbia professor Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-winning economist and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
In 2015 alone, Stiglitz wrotetwo books on the topic, The Great Divide and Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy, based on years of researchand expertise about the intersection of economic theory, markets, and policy. Each book highlights a series of problems and challenges that have led to the current state of economic inequality: a faulty tax code that rewards the rich and hampers the poor, an increase in behavior that boosts the economic gains of only a few while extracting more capital from the majority, and a misplaced focus on altering the economy in a way that benefits shareholders, executives, and investors, but not the average worker.