Mediaboss Marketing

Economists who served in the administration of Barack Obama have endorsed President Trump's selection for top economic adviser, telling senators that his advice to the president will be helpful regardless of his political views.

Forty-four economists signed a letter Monday endorsing conservative economist Kevin Hassett to serve as chairman of Trump's Council of Economic Advisers ahead of his confirmation hearing.

Several of the signers played a key role in shaping Obama's policies, including Christina Romer, who chaired the council and helped devise Obama's 2009 stimulus measure; Peter Orszag, the budget director who played a major role in the healthcare legislation; and Jason Furman, who chaired the council at the end the Obama administration. Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve who was re-appointed by Obama, also signed the letter.

"While we disagree on many issues, as economists we all agree that the Nation would be well served if Kevin Hassett is confirmed as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers," wrote the group, which also included several prominent right-leaning academics, think tank scholars, and former officials in Republican administrations.

Hassett is scheduled to go before the Senate Banking Committee for a confirmation hearing Tuesday morning.

A scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Hassett has long advocated free-market policies. In some areas, he has stood behind positions that are at odds with the populist, nationalist policies espoused by Trump. For instance, he has argued for liberalizing trade. Hassett has also suggested that the U.S. should increase immigration levels.

The authors of Monday's letter also commended Hassett for reaching across the aisle. He has "consistently made an effort to reach out to a wide range of people from across the ideological spectrum ... to promote economic dialogue," they wrote.

As the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Hassett would be responsible for providing economic forecasts to the president and for giving him feedback from an economic perspective on policy options. Trump already has a powerful economics adviser involved in the legislative process in his director of the National Economic Council, former Goldman Sachs president Gary Cohn.

See more here:
Obama economists back Trump nominee Kevin Hassett - Washington Examiner

Libertarians are, in all honesty, the cringe lords of Facebook. Theyve become the Jehovahs witnesses of the internet.

Libertarianism is a movement with a ton of wonderful people in it, many simply read paperwork on economics and policy, are very smart and go on to living productive and happy lives. That said, it seems like these are only one in every dozen. The rest are a combination of Chris Cantwell, James Weeks, and a bunch of people somewhere on the spectrum, they are not the best marketers.

Ive made a list of ten things libertarians seem to be doing (common and bizarre trends) which are not helping in making their movement a thing.

Lets explain something very basic. If you want to be a person, be a freaking person! Theres nothing more bizarre, or weird, than when someone sees a Facebook profile of a dude they know, went to school with, or are related to, and its just some ugly Facebook profile photo of a dumb meme saying some libertarian buzzword.

Have a photo with friends!

Have a photo looking good!

Have a photo visiting a cool location!

Do not be some junk mass produced meme!

This is something that belongs higher on the list, but its something to just get out of the way early on.

I have questions for many libertarians: Do you hold a masters or PhD in economics? Are you some sort of successful business owner? Are you someone of really any relevance in this world?

Look at the podcasts, the blogs, the candidates, and more. Its all people who, wellarent anybody.

However, its all Oh, like my Facebook page devoted to me! I have a dozen of them!

Its great to be smart. Its great to want to be a face in a movement. Its not great to come off as an egotistical prick Im looking at you Steve Patterson.

This one I just dont really get, the economy and world is a wonderful place, and Ive noticed a lot of libertarians (more so the Ron Paul people) saying the world will come to an end if libertarianism doesnt take over. Ive flat out had people say America is in the verge of becoming a third world nation, and thats just silly.

Life is awesome, and whether its Trump, Bernie, Clinton, or whoever, America and the world has a positive future.

This is where we enter the world of creepertarians.

Yes, I want prostitution to be legal. Yes, I think it is a big issue for some people. However, unless you are a woman, just dont make this your issue. The numbers of creepy people I see who fixate on this random issue (all of whom tend to be socially autistic males) needs to stop.

This is a Libertarian Party problem and its a big one. The LP, to survive, needs big and powerful names.

We need to get on the phone with every millionaire and billionaire who didnt vote for Trump or Clinton and find out if they are compatible with libertarianism. We need to go beg Jeff Flake, Rand Paul, Bill Weld and Justin Amash to be in the liberty movement.

When I see these non-candidates being taken as serious contenders, I laugh and so do non libertarians.

I have never had a drink of alcohol. I have never smoked pot. I have never smoked a cigarette. I have never consumed any caffeine. I dont plan to.

This is where I sadly had an issue with Gary Johnson, a guy I really admire.

I idolize Gary Johnson as the libertarian governor who would climb mountains and build companies. Im not so fixated on him running around talking about how much he loves marijuana.

Now, with Gary its kind of cool. Having a guy that successful actually saying how he has casually smoked marijuana and is still a giant success is cool. However, when less successful libertarians run around talking about their bag of pot, we have an issue.

Remember, every time a libertarian wears a fedora, three Bernie backers are born.

Julie Borowski is probably the best speaker in the liberty movement now who actually makes good content. To see a bunch of freaky dudes online say very perverse things to her in the comments on her Facebook is gross.

Also, this goes beyond Julie into how a lot of libertarians treat women in general. Some just need to grow up.

Want libertarianism to work?

Talk about deregulation in the energy markets cutting costs to ten bucks a barrel.

Talk about making it so undocumented workers will get amnesty.

Talk about the FDA being restructured to allow for massively lower priced pills.

Talk about a practical plan to cut taxes in half.

Talk about how great itd be to have a generation that didnt have to go to war.

The NAP is a philosophical BS statement that no non- libertarian understands and those who run on about it should just get a community college philosophy class to teach at.

Taxation is theft is a meme, taxes need to exist. This is a dumb radicalism.

And the biggest of them all, number one

One big mistake, is that too many libertarians get obsessed with this and become little else than someone obsessed with politics. Travel the world. Succeed in academics or business. Take up cool hobbies such as music, art, archery or whatever. Do not be that jackass posting twenty times a day on Facebook about some stupid topic.

Thats all Ive got.

This post was written by Charles Peralo.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

Go here to read the rest:
10 Ways Not To Make Your Friends Libertarian - Being Libertarian

New York Times

Governor Struggles to Lead as Texas Republicans Splinter Into Factions New York Times By almost any measure, Mr. Abbott, 59, has been a staunchly conservative voice in Texas politics. But now he is struggling to steer the state through one of its most tumultuous political moments in decades, as Republican factions engage in open warfare. and more »

View post:
Governor Struggles to Lead as Texas Republicans Splinter Into Factions - New York Times

There's a belief prevalent among Republicans that no matter how bad President Trump's antics become, flyover country voters won't mind. A new story by the Kansas City Star adds fuel to that fable, reporting conversations with half-a-dozen outside-the-Beltway voters who could care less about Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey.

And while it's true that the president's most diehard supporters will take his word over his critics, that shouldn't offer Republicans much electoral comfort. Anyone who doubts that must explain the last presidential election and the last 25 years of politics.

Not long ago, the Democrat faithful were playing a constant game of whack-a-mole with Hillary Clinton controversies. They didn't care about the private email server, shady Clinton Foundation donors, or the Benghazi attacks. Each was blindly dismissed and they did much to curb the enthusiasm of the overwhelming 84 percent of liberals who backed Clinton.

But it didn't matter. Clinton lost.

Of course keeping the support of a party's base is important, but it's not everything. The last three presidents each enjoyed overwhelming support of their party before losing control of Congress. Consider Obama, whose 80 percent approval rating among Democrats couldn't save him from midterm shellackings in 2010 and 2014.

When Comey testifies in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, Republicans will be tempted to run to the welcoming arms of the base. That's both understandable and delusional. Trump's supporters might dismiss controversy as unfounded, like Clinton's fan did before, but the White House cannot.

Whether or not the Russia hysteria has merit, Trump's presidency is undeniably suffering as a result. Six months in, Republicans don't have a single significant legislative victory to their name. Obamacare repeal and tax reform have taken a back seat as Trump screeches about unfair "witch-hunts."

As that hysteria unfolds, lawmakers are becoming increasingly nervous as the midterm elections approach. There's a legitimate fear that Republicans will have little to run on, except promises. If recent history is a guide, Trump could face the electoral rebukes both his Democrat and Republican predecessors experienced. If Republicans lose Congress, they'll find little comfort in the continued support of Trump's base.

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Here is the original post:
Ahead of Comey testimony, Republicans shouldn't take too much stock in the support of Trump's base - Washington Examiner

Since 1965, Medicaid has stood the test of time as the nations principal public health insurance program for the low-income population. Since its inception, the program has ballooned primarily through a series of program expansions in the 1980s and again after the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 so that today the program accounts for nearly 20 percent of State budgets and covers more than 1 in 5 Americans. While Medicare has implemented program reforms (payment reforms such as the inpatient and outpatient prospective payment systems; Medicare Advantage; Medicare Part D; delivery system reform through the Innovation Center), Medicaid has been slower to innovate. However, innovation does not need to come at the expense of coverage for millions of Americans, nor should it. Instead, as thoughtful Republicans rightfully think through ways in which to bring the Medicaid programs into the 21st century, a little out-of-the-box thinking may be the cure.

Under current practice, Federal funding for the state-administered Medicaid program is generally reserved for traditional health care services. So while Medicaid will gladly pay tens of thousands of dollars for an eligible childs admission to the hospital for an asthma attack, Medicaid will not pay the $100 needed for a portable air conditioner so that the parents of that child can leave the window closed at night in the summertime (thereby preventing that asthma attack.) Both of these services the hospital admission and the air conditioner provide clear benefits for the well-being of this child. Yet, one costs thousands and is readily covered, while the other saves thousands and is not covered by the program.

As Medicaid moves into the 21st century, we need rethink what is health care, particularly for those most in need. If paying for a driver to take a special needs individual to a job keeps that individual healthier (both physically and mentally), who is to say that this is not a health care service? If a young mother would benefit from a voluntary home visiting program to receive guidance to help them become a better parent, does this not improve the well-being of both the child and the mother?

The good news is that this idea is catching on. A recent amendment to Medicaids managed care rules permits a state to adopt and even direct payment models intended to recognize value or outcomes over volume of services. And states across the country are piloting pay for success models, wherein private sector funding steps in to pay for interventions designed to improve lives and save money, offering these investors a return on their investment. But government intervention (or at least clarity) is needed here. As Republicans begin to rethink the Medicaid program, they should also rethink what is health care and clarify that Federal dollars are available for evidence-based practices which promote the well-being of the individual and long-term cost savings.

Ruth Ann Norton serves as President & CEO of the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative (GHHI), a national nonprofit founded in 1986 dedicated to the elimination of childhood lead poisoning and the creation of healthy, safe and energy efficient housing for Americas children.

Ross Margulies is an attorney at Foley Hoag LLP where he advises a wide range of health care clients on regulatory and administrative processes and reimbursement matters.

Continue reading here:
As Republicans Rethink Medicaid, Rethink What Is 'Health Care' - HuffPost