The FCC gives pollsters heartburn with new rules that toughen restrictions on the use of "autodialers" to call cell phones. Yet, surveys that don't use cell phones are less accurate, a study finds. And pollsters offer advice for reporting polls. This is HuffPollster for Friday, June 19, 2015.

*FCC ACTS TO SHIELD CONSUMERS, COMPLICATES LIFE FOR POLLSTERS* - As expected, the Federal Communications Committee adopted a set of new rules on Thursday designed to better shield Americans from unwanted calls and spam text messages. The FCC also gave telephone companies a green light to offer services that would allow customers to block "robocalls" and unsolicited text messages.

As of this writing, the FCC has not yet published the full text of the new rules, approved by a 3 to 2 party line vote. However, the changes described in an FCC press release and more than an hour of statements by FCC commissioners on Thursday generally confirm issues that previously led the Market Research Association to warn of "less accurate research results, higher costs, and more class action lawsuits" against survey call centers.

The crux of the issue for pollsters is the apparent toughening of a provision of the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that prohibited the use of an “automatic telephone dialing system” to contact “any telephone number assigned to a …cellular telephone service” without “express prior consent” from the party being called. That provision has long prevented pollsters from dialing cell phone numbers when conducting fully automated, recorded voice polls. It also limited the degree to which live interviewer polls can use computer automation to call sampled mobile phone numbers.

Given the rapid growth of cell-phone-only households -- the latest CDC estimate shows 43 percent of American adults have only wireless telephones -- pollsters had hoped to convince the FCC to create an exception for legitimate survey research. The FCC's actions this week not only slam the door on those hopes, but also appear to toughen the "autodialer" definition in ways that could significantly increase costs for survey calls to cell phones.

As described in the FCC press release, the new rules "reaffirm" the already broad definition of an autodialer, defining it as "any technology with the capacity to dial random or sequential numbers."

"Clever lawyers have fed the explosion in robocalls," Commissioner Tom Wheeler explained, "by claiming that if the company substitutes software for hardware to drive the calls and/or doesn’t call from a list that they are exempt from our rules." The exploitation of that loophole, he added, "has fed the expansion of robocalls. It’s now closed.”

Two Republicans who opposed the rule warned that it would "dramatically expand" the reach of the autodialer definition. "Equipment that could conceivably function as an autodialer in the future counts as an autodialer today," Commissioner Michael O’Rielly argued. "Indeed, the new definition is so expansive that the FCC has to use rotary phones as an example of technology that would not be covered because the modifications needed to make an autodialer would be too extensive."

"After this order," Commissioner Ajit Pai added, "each and every smartphone, tablet, VoIP phone, calling app, texting app, pretty much any phone that’s not a rotary dial phone will be an automatic telephone dialing system. What does that mean in the real world? It means we’re taking our focus off of telemarketing fraud and sweeping all kinds of legitimate phone calls within the TCPA.”

If these new rules do in fact further restrict the use of technology in the dialing of mobile phones, the impact will be even greater costs for telephone surveys that include them.

While the new rules allow for "very limited and specific exemptions for urgent circumstances," such as automated emergency financial and medical alerts, according to the FCC press release, they make no exceptions for legitimate survey research. In fact, during more than an hour of statements, the Commissioners never used the words "survey" or "poll."

However, Chairman Wheeler told a reporter for The Hill why surveys would not qualify for exemption:
Wheeler said reporting fraud on your bank account is “a little different than, ‘Hello, tell me who you will vote for,’ or ‘Hello, let me do a push poll.’ That is a little different from, ‘Hello, you have a health emergency.’”
The FCC's "green light" to "robocall blocking technologies" involves an apparently simple rule change with harder to gauge consequences. Previously, telephone companies had refused to enable third party services that offered to block incoming calls from telemarketers. "The phone companies have resisted doing this," Wheeler explained," because they said the FCC wouldn’t allow them to do so. Well, today that issue is cleared up. Phone companies, please start letting your consumers request to have robocalls blocked."

What will remain unclear, even when the rule language becomes available, is how quickly such services will become available and how they will affect surveys. As NBC News reports, landline phone companies previously said "it did not make economic sense to invest in call-blocking technology for their old-fashioned analog networks when they were spending billion to switch to Internet phone service." NBC also reported the reaction of Aaron Foss, who currently operates a call blocking service Nomorobo for VOIP systems:
Foss wants to provide the service for landline and cellphone customers, but he needs cooperation from the phone companies -- something that has not happened. Foss told NBC News he does not expect landline carriers to do anything in response to the FCC's decision. He said, however, that he is "cautiously optimistic" the FCC's action will give the wireless carriers the prod they need to allow better call-screening technology on their networks.
In a previous HuffPollster report, Voss said his service maintains a "white list" of approved callers that includes legitimate survey organizations.

*MEANWHILE...POLLS THAT DON'T CALL CELL PHONES ARE LESS ACCURATE* - Sean J. Miller: "*Pollsters must abandon their traditional methodology or risk survey inaccuracies like they had in 2012.* That’s according to Ole Forsberg and Mark Payton, professors in the department of statistics at Oklahoma State University who published a study Monday that explored how pre-Election Day battleground state polling in the 2012 cycle wound up favoring Mitt Romney over President Obama. The culprit, they said in their study published on the website of Statistics and Public Policy, is cellphones. 'The cellphone-only households don’t poll the same as the landlines, in general,' Payton told C&E. 'If [pollsters] continue to do business like they did in 2012, I expect they’ll have some bias [this cycle].'...Political researchers say they’ve tried increasing the number of interviews being conducted via cells in their surveys, but *blame FCC restrictions and higher costs for the underrepresentation of CPO households in polling*." [Campaigns and Elections]

*POLLSTERS GIVE ADVICE ON HOW TO REPORT ON POLLS* - Brian Resnick and Nora Kelly: "Polls are snapshots, meant to capture voter sentiment at a particular moment. These snapshots can be aggregated to chart trends, but only in retrospect...*Be skeptical if a polling organization makes it difficult to find [methodological information]*: the complete data set; the exact wording of the questions; the margin of error; and who paid for the poll, if it was paid for...To make a sound comparison between two polling numbers, you want to hold as many variables constant as possible. Citing two different polls in one comparison introduces a whole mess of variables." [National Journal]

*MORE POLLS OF THE WEEK*

-A Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation survey of college students finds 20 percent of women and 5 percent of men report being sexually assaulted either by physical force or while incapacitated. [WashPost]

-Opinions on the health care law remain closely divided and most Americans haven't heard much about the Supreme Court cases challenging its existence. [Kaiser]

-Americans' confidence in all three branches of government remains near an all-time low. [Gallup]

-Forty-two percent of Americans express confidence in organized religion, the lowest confidence on record for Gallup. [Gallup]

-Democrats have grown increasingly liberal in recent years. [Gallup]

-Obama's job approval rating struggles to improve as perceptions of economic recovery stall. [National Journal]

-The percentage of Republicans who say they'd be enthusiastic about or satisfied with Rand Paul as their nominee has dropped since his April announcement. [HuffPost]

-A history of debt may play better than personal wealth for 2016 candidates. [HuffPost]

-Suffolk University finds Bernie Sanders running 10 points behind Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. [Suffolk]

-The Monmouth University poll finds "no top tier" of GOP candidates in 2016. [Monmouth]

-Hillary Clinton continues to lead the Democratic field, while the GOP remains crowded. [PPP]

*HUFFPOLLSTER VIA EMAIL!* - You can receive this weekly update every Friday morning via email! Just click here, enter your email address, and click "sign up." That's all there is to it (and you can unsubscribe anytime).

*THIS WEEK'S 'OUTLIERS'* - Links to the best of news at the intersection of polling, politics and political data:

-The Bernie Sanders surge is limited to New Hampshire, says Harry Enten. [538]

-Kathleen Weldon summarizes historical polling data on American's beliefs about the afterlife. [HuffPost]

-The Republican party eliminates the Iowa straw poll. [HuffPost]

-How much do Americans dislike Donald Trump? A lot. [HuffPost, part 1, part 2]

-Mark Mellman (D) reviews the politics of trade. [The Hill]

-Democrats Jefrey Pollock and Geoff Garin sign to poll for Priorities USA, the super PAC backing Hillary Clinton's campaign. [Politico]

-Dan Diamond reviews the methods of surveys that estimate the percentage of Americans without health insurance. [Forbes via Alan Reifman]

-Mark Penn (D) forms a new digital marketing investment group. [WSJ via Opinion Today]

-The new book by Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, is available for pre-order. [The Selfie Vote]

-Axis Maps offers a guide to making thematic data maps. [ via FlowingData]-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.

Filed under: Health Care, U.S. Government, Scandals and Lawsuits, Barack Obama, Health Insurance

*Andrew Harnik/AP*

By ANDREW TAYLOR

WASHINGTON -- A new nonpartisan government study says that repealing President Barack Obama's signature health care law would boost the economy even as it increases budget deficits.

The Congressional Budget Office says that completely repealing the law would, on average, increase the economy by 0.7 percent a year when economic effects have had a chance to kick in. That's mostly because more people would work more to make up for the lack of health care subsidies from the government.

But the budget office adds that repealing the law's spending cuts and tax increases would add $137 billion to the federal deficit over the coming decade, even as almost $1.7 trillion in coverage costs would disappear.

The Congressional Budget Office does nonpartisan budget analysis for lawmakers.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments Reported by DailyFinance 9 hours ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Repealing President Barack Obama's signature health care law would modestly increase the budget deficit even as it boosts the economy, according to a nonpartisan government study released Friday. Conservatives who brought the lawsuit say the law's literal wording prevents the federal government from subsidizing private health insurance premiums in states that failed to set up their own insurance markets. Republicans in control of the House and Senate have said that if the court strikes down subsidies in the mostly GOP-held states that would be affected, they would advance legislation to ease the immediate effect on people who would lose coverage. The CBO provides lawmakers with nonpartisan budget and economic analysis, and Republicans controlling Congress have increasingly given the office a mandate to incorporate the economic effects of major legislation its work. Reported by SeattlePI.com 8 hours ago.

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thinks Americans may have forgotten about the 40-hour week.

"A hundred years ago workers took to the streets" to fight for 40 hours, Sanders told The Huffington Post. "And a hundred years have come and gone, we’ve seen an explosion in technology, we’ve seen an explosion in productivity, we have a great global economy, and what do you have? The vast majority of people are working longer hours for lower wages."

American workers with full-time jobs work an average of 42.7 hours per week, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Including part-timers in the calculation puts the average American workweek at 39 hours.

Sanders said he wants to appropriate the term "family values" from Republicans, who have historically used it to talk about social issues, and use it to promote legislation mandating paid vacation, paid sick days and paid parental leave for U.S. workers. Just 11 percent of workers had access to paid leave to care for newborns in 2012, according to the BLS.

"What the Republicans talk about when they speak of family values is to deny a woman the right to control her own body, to deny a woman the right to get contraceptives, opposition to gay rights and gay marriage," Sanders said. "I don’t think those are family values."

Last week Sanders introduced a bill that would require employers to give at least 10 paid vacation days annually to any employees who have worked at the company for at least a year.

"What our legislation says -- and we think this is absolutely a family value -- is that a mom and a dad should have the right to at least a couple of weeks off of paid vacation so they can spend quality time with their kids," Sanders said.

Republicans control Congress, and they aren't keen on shortening work hours. They have complained bitterly, for instance, that President Barack Obama's health care law undermines the 40-hour week. The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2014 that the Affordable Care Act could result in some Americans choosing to work less because they could get health insurance without being tied to a full-time job.

American workers did indeed fight and die for shorter hours, which for a long time was the foremost demand of the labor movement. The shorter hours movement culminated in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, a federal law that established the minimum wage and requires employers to give workers extra pay when they work more than 40 hours per week. The effectiveness of the law has eroded, however, because the law only protects salaried workers earning less than $23,660 per year.

"What that means if you were a quote-unquote supervisor at McDonald’s, making $25,000 a year, $28,000 a year, and you are supervising some other people flipping hamburgers and you’re working 50 or 60 hours a week, you do not get overtime," Sanders said.

Sanders and other Democrats have asked Obama to consider raising the salary threshold so it covers more workers, something the White House is currently considering. Sanders wants to see the threshold set at $57,000.

"That means everybody making under that would get time and a half when they work more than 40 hours a week," he said. "Very important step forward."

*Listen to HuffPost's interview with Sanders on this week's "So, That Happened" podcast below:*
To listen to this podcast later, download our show on iTunes. While you're there, please subscribe, rate and review our show. You can check out other HuffPost Podcasts here.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.

If Republicans repeal Obamacare, the budget deficit will soar by $353 billion over 10 years and 19 million people will lose their health insurance. Reported by msnbc.com 6 hours ago.

If you are unfortunate enough to be involved in accident with an uninsured driver, it’s important to know that your situation is not totally hopeless. Following the tips below can help when that happens

Phoenix, AZ (PRWEB) June 19, 2015

If you are unfortunate enough to be involved in accident with an uninsured driver, it’s important to know that your situation is not totally hopeless. There are also a few simple steps drivers can do to help their cause, when involved in a collusion with an uninsured driver.

First off, give yourself a break and realize that there is not a malicious force causing your misfortune. Sadly, 14% percent of divers are uninsured. So your odds of a collision with one of these unscrupulous drivers are relatively high. In fact, it is reported by the Insurance Research Council that “one in seven drivers in the United States are uninsured.” So, it’s important to have some plan of attack if you’re ever involved in an uninsured auto accident scenario.

First things first, dig for information. Even though insurance information from an uninsured driver will obviously be absent, you still need as much information as possible. This means you want the other drivers name, driver’s license number, and the license plate number. Also, snap a picture of the accident and even request to photograph the driver who hit you.

Next, you need to call the police. They will document the accident, which will later come in handy when filing an insurance claim. Also, an uninsured driver is essentially breaking the law, so the authorities should be reported.

Also, you should reach out to your insurance provider. Hopefully, your insurance policy covers something called uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. This will compensate you for injuries and damages when the other driver does not have insurance coverage. Also, underinsurance coverage can compensate for an accident involving a driver whose plan fails to cover complete damages. So if your assailant’s insurance only covers $25,000, and the total damage ranges around $100,000, underinsurance may cover the remaining $75,000.

Even without underinsurance or uninsured motorist coverage you may still reclaim coverage for your damages. Indeed, collision and personal injury protection may cover the damages associated with your crash. Health insurance may also assist with medical treatment. But uninsured accidents can be complicated.

In short

1)    Get information.
i)     drivers name,
ii)     driver’s license number
iii)     and the license plate number
2)    Call the police
3)    Call your insurance agent
4)    Consult an attorney

“It’s best to consult an attorney if you are involved in an accident with an uninsured driver. These types of accident cases can be complicated and you need not face the situation alone,” said John Coste, Attorney at Hastings & Hastings. Reported by PRWeb 6 hours ago.

A new report says repealing the controversial Obamacare law expanding access to health insurance in the United States would add  $137 billion to the federal deficit, leave 19 million people uninsured and slightly increase economic growth over 10 years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which has the job of analyzing the economic and budget impact of proposed laws, released the report Friday. Obamacare, which is officially known as the Affordable Care Act, was signed... Reported by VOA News 5 hours ago.

The economist that Republicans handpicked to run the Congressional Budget Office just told Republicans that one of their favorite arguments about Obamacare is wrong.

According to a report the CBO released Friday, repealing the Affordable Care Act wouldn't reduce the deficit, as Republicans have long claimed. It would increase the deficit, by at least $137 billion over 10 years and maybe a lot more than that -- with the effects getting bigger over time.

Of course, that’s in addition to the effect repeal would have on the number of Americans without health insurance. The CBO says the ranks of the uninsured would increase by 19 million people next year.

The agency's assessments matter because the CBO is Washington’s unofficial referee on policymaking. Before passing a law, Congress looks to the CBO and its staff of well-respected, nonpartisan economists to predict how much money a proposal will bring into the federal Treasury and how much it will force the government to pay out. Members of Congress also depend on CBO estimates to show them how proposals to alter health care policy will affect the number of Americans who have health insurance, what prices these people will pay for their coverage, and so on.

But the CBO's reputation for budgetary honesty doesn't make it immune from political controversy.

For most of the last few years, the agency has been under the direction of Douglas Elmendorf -- an economist who, at the CBO, used widely accepted, more traditional methods of predicting the impact of federal laws. While Elmendorf had served previously in the Clinton administration, he was not easy on the Democrats when he got to the CBO. On the contrary, during 2009 and 2010, his skeptical take on early proposals to reduce health care costs caused Democrats plenty of grief as they were crafting what became the Affordable Care Act. They ultimately responded by introducing more aggressive and politically volatile measures, such as steeper cuts to what Medicare pays hospitals and a “Cadillac tax” on the most generous employer-sponsored health insurance plans. Elmendorf eventually certified that, with these additional reforms in place, the health care law would reduce the deficit -- first by a little, then by a lot.

To say Republicans were unhappy about this assessment would be a gross understatement. They talked (and still talk) of the health care law as a “budget buster,” refusing to acknowledge the CBO’s verdict or, at the very least, questioning the assumptions behind it. Although Republican leaders frequently praised Elmendorf -- U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (Texas) once said, “God bless Dr. Doug Elmendorf for his integrity and his commitment to telling the truth” --
this year they opted to replace him with Keith Hall, a more conservative economist who had served on the Council of Economic Advisers in the George W. Bush administration. At the same time, the House passed a rule requiring that the CBO use “dynamic scoring” -- a controversial method of projection that, conservatives say, better incorporates their thinking about how laws will affect the economy.

Hall’s appointment plus the directive to use dynamic scoring set off alarm bells in Washington, particularly among Democrats, although economists from both the left and center worried it would effectively rig the legislative process in favor of Republicans.

Assessments of the Affordable Care Act are one place dynamic scoring could make a big difference, because the health care law interacts with the economy in multiple ways. Among other things, economists say, the Affordable Care Act slightly reduces the size of the full-time workforce, primarily because people who might otherwise cling to jobs or put in longer hours just to get health insurance can now buy coverage through HealthCare.gov or one of the new state exchanges. (The effect is biggest among lower-income workers and older workers.) Fewer people in the workforce means lower economic output and less tax revenue. Many conservatives have said a full accounting of the law’s economic impact would show it really does increase the deficit -- and that, as a result, repeal would bring the deficit lower.

Friday’s CBO assessment incorporates such assumptions and, sure enough, it makes a huge difference in how the CBO evaluates the law. But even with these principles baked into the projections, the CBO’s best guess is that eliminating the Affordable Care Act would increase the deficit by $137 billion over 10 years. Under the more traditional CBO method -- in other words, without dynamic scoring -- repeal would swell the deficit by $353 billion over that period, or nearly three times as much, the CBO announced.

The CBO's main estimate includes another important assumption that changes the outcome substantially. In calculating how Congress would rescind the law’s Medicare cuts, the CBO assumed Congress would use a formula less favorable to hospitals. If Congress used a formula more favorable to hospitals, the CBO said, repeal would increase the deficit by an additional $160 billion over 10 years -- that is, on top of the higher deficits the CBO already expects.

And all of these numbers are just for the first 10 years. After that, the new CBO report says, a repeal's impact on the deficit would be larger.

So a fair summary of the report is that the CBO now believes repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit over the next decade by more than $100 billion and maybe a lot more, depending on whether it includes some assumptions that conservatives usually support. Repeal would have this effect while forcing people to work longer hours or find full-time jobs purely for the sake of getting health insurance. (Remember, that’s why the law reduces the labor supply.) At the same time, repeal would deprive many millions of Americans of the chance to get health insurance, thereby reducing a historic decline in the uninsured that has taken place since the law took full effect.

Peter Orszag, who preceded Elmendorf at the CBO and served as the Obama administration’s first budget director, told The Huffington Post that this new report is “an object lesson in being careful what you wish for. Those hoping that dynamic scoring would produce a much different answer and flip the sign [of deficit reduction] must be very disappointed. The ACA reduced the deficit, and repealing it would increase the deficit, regardless of whether macroeconomic feedback effects are included or not.”

The CBO is hardly infallible. Its estimates are just that -- rough guesses, albeit highly informed ones, about how policies will play out in the future. The debate about how to make projections, and what assumptions to use, is serious and generates honest disagreement even among some like-minded experts. But when an assessment by a Republican economist, using methods that Republicans prefer, shows that repealing the health care law would increase the deficit, that’s a stinging rebuke of Republican dogma on Obamacare -- though you’d never know it by listening to them. Here, for example, is how U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) responded to the report on Friday:

“CBO has determined what many in Congress have known all along. This law acts as an anchor on our economy by dragging down employment and reducing labor force participation. As a result, the deficit reduction that the Democrats promised when it was enacted is substantially unclear. While CBO’s report notes that the deficit impact of repealing the law is highly uncertain, and could even reduce the deficit, it does show that repealing this law will boost nationwide employment and grow the economy.”

As it happens, Republicans earlier this year included special instructions in their budget resolution, exempting changes to the Affordable Care Act from the usual parliamentary rules for proposals that would increase the deficit. Apparently Republicans can ignore a CBO with a Republican director just as happily as they'd ignore one with a Democrat in charge.

Jeffrey Young contributed reporting.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

Don Young held a fundraiser in Puerto Rico and then held a hearing on its political status, making it the second-most offensive thing he's ever done to Hispanics. The Benghazi select committee grilled Sidney Blumenthal about Hillary Clinton's domestic agenda, because the victims' families deserve to find the peace that only comes with President Scott Walker's pro-business, hawkish foreign policy agenda. And Lindsey Graham said South Carolina's decision to fly the Confederate flag "works here," because when discussing a centuries-old symbol of racial oppression, it helps to use the same language you would when discussing the feng shui of a credenza. This is HUFFPOST HILL for June 19th, 2015:

*RICK SANTORUM ACKNOWLEDGES RACIAL MOTIVATION IN CHARLESTON MASSACRE* - Igor Bobic: "Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (R) didn't equivocate Friday when asked about the nature of an attack by a white gunman on a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina. '*It was clearly racially motivated. Clearly*,' Santorum told The Huffington Post at the Faith & Freedom Coalition Conference in Washington, D.C. The presidential candidate took issue with news reports that said he blamed the attack on a broader assault against religious liberty. He explained that he didn't know all the facts when he was first asked about the shooting on Thursday morning. '*At the time I didn't know it was racially motivated, nobody did*,' he said." Nobody on Fox News did; everyone else had a clue, but better late than never. [HuffPost]

The Justice Department thinks we might have a case of domestic terrorism on our hands.

*JEB BUSH BEGINNING TO THINK RACE MIGHT HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT* - Laura Bassett and Igor Bobic: "Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Friday that he isn't sure what motivated a young white man to walk into a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, Wednesday night and kill nine people. '*I don't know what was on the mind or the heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes*,' the former Florida governor said at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference." Get that man a newspaper! Later this morning: "The Huffington Post asked Jeb Bush on Friday whether the shooting was racially motivated. 'It was a horrific act and I don't know what the background of it is, but it was an act of hatred,' Bush said. Asked again whether the shooting was because of race, Bush added, '*I don't know. Looks like to me it was*, but we'll find out all the information. It's clear it was an act of raw hatred, for sure. Nine people lost their lives, and they were African-American. You can judge what it is.'" [HuffPost]

*OBAMACARE REPEAL NOT TOO PRETTY* - Another hearty piece of cohnbread from Jonathan Cohn: "The economist that Republicans handpicked to run the Congressional Budget Office just told Republicans that one of their favorite arguments about Obamacare is wrong. According to a report the CBO released Friday, repealing the Affordable Care Act wouldn't reduce the deficit, as Republicans have long claimed. *It would increase the deficit, by at least $137 billion over 10 years and maybe a lot more than that -- with the effects getting bigger over time.* Of course, that’s in addition to the effect repeal would have on the number of Americans without health insurance. The CBO says the ranks of the uninsured would increase by 19 million people next year." [HuffPost]

Check out Rep. Mark Pocan's amazing card trick on the HuffPost Politics podcast. We also got magic tricks from Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison.

*DAILY DELANEY DOWNER* - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thinks Americans may have forgotten about the 40-hour week. "A hundred years ago workers took to the streets" to fight for 40 hours, Sanders told The Huffington Post. "*And a hundred years have come and gone, we’ve seen an explosion in technology, we’ve seen an explosion in productivity, we have a great global economy, and what do you have? The vast majority of people are working longer hours for lower wages*." American workers with full-time jobs work an average of 42.7 hours per week, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Including part-timers in the calculation puts the average American workweek at 39 hours. [HuffPost]

Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It's free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to huffposthill@huffingtonpost.com. Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill

*DON YOUNG: WHADDA GUY* - We hear the fundraiser was a real boon for his reelection committee, Nothing Matters PAC. Anna Palmer, John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman: "Alaska Republican Don Young is holding a fundraiser in Puerto Rico Friday, just days before he chairs a controversial hearing on the territory’s political and economic status. The close proximity of the hearing and the fundraising event has sparked ethical concerns among some of Young’s colleagues on a Natural Resources subcommittee, but committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) told POLITICO that Young is free to set his own schedule...Young’s fundraiser at a San Juan restaurant is hosted by Igualdad Futuro Seguro, a pro-statehood political action committee...The Wednesday hearing back in Washington is expected to address the island’s political status, a hot-button issue on Capitol Hill for decades. The Alaska Republican has long favored granting statehood to Puerto Rico and cosponsored legislation proposed by Resident Commisioner Pedro Pierluisi that would require a vote in Puerto Rico within one year on the statehood question." [Politico]

*MOAR BENGHAZI ANSWERS* - Sam Levine and Sam Stein: "The most recent evidence of a narrowed, singular focus [on Hillary Clinton] came this week, when Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi called a longtime Clinton confidant, Sidney Blumenthal, to testify in private. Blumenthal has Benghazi ties himself. He provided informal consultation to Clinton while she was at the State Department and apparently had business interests in Libya at the time…*But according to sources familiar with his testimony, including one who was in the room, committee members placed far more attention on Blumenthal's domestic political role for Clinton and how he will help her presidential ambitions than in understanding the nature of the attack that killed four U.S. officials, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens*. Those sources told The Huffington Post that it was several hours into Blumenthal's deposition before Republicans actually asked about the attacks. Blumenthal's congressional inquisitors posed roughly three times as many questions on his associations with the Clinton Foundation -- the charitable organization tied to the former first family for which he was a paid consultant -- as well as his work for Democratic-campaign institutions such as Media Matters and Correct the Record, than on the Benghazi attacks." [HuffPost]

*GRAHAM ON CONFEDERATE FLAG: 'IT WORKS HERE'* - Jesse Byrnes: "Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican presidential candidate, on Friday said the Confederate flag is part of the heritage of his home state of South Carolina, rebuffing calls for it to be taken down after a mass shooting in the state. 'Well, at the end of the day it's time for people in South Carolina to revisit that decision. [That] would be fine with me, but this is part of who we are,' Graham said on CNN when asked if the flag should stop flying at the Statehouse. 'The flag represents to some people a civil war, and that was the symbol of one side. To others it's a racist symbol, and it's been used by people, it's been used in a racist way,' Graham said." [The Hill]

*ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES NEW TRUCK EMISSION STANDARDS* - But when will we stop the dangerous practice of infusing our truck nutz with unsafe levels of BPAs? Kate Sheppard: "The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced new performance standards on Friday for heavy- and medium-duty trucks and tractor-trailers, *a proposal they say will cut emissions by 1 billion metric tons and reduce oil use by 1.8 billion barrels*. The Obama administration previously announced rules for cars and light-duty trucks, and earlier this month announced it is moving toward addressing emissions from commercial airplanes. Medium- and heavy-duty trucks currently account for about 20 percent of the energy use and also 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, the EPA said, even though the trucks account for only about 5 percent of vehicles on the road...The proposed rules apply to model years 2021 to 2027 and will require efficiency improvements across different types of vehicles such as buses, tractor-trailers, and large vans and trucks. The agencies are also proposing efficiency standards for trailers that would begin in 2018. While the expected improvements in efficiency vary by vehicle type, the agencies said they anticipate a 24 percent reduction in emissions from the tractor portion of tractor-trailers and an 8 percent reduction for the trailer portion. The administration plans to finalize the proposed rules in 2016." [HuffPost]

*SURE, YEAH: NEWT GINGRICH REVIEWS THE APPLE WATCH* - "Watch, give me directions from zoo to moon base." Newt: "[O]ne of the stranger experiences with the Apple Watch was getting a notification on my wrist from the McDonald’s app telling me the Washington Nationals had scored six runs the previous evening, entitling me to a free six-piece Chicken McNuggets." [Mashable ]
White guys with Apple Watch

*Poor guy*: " Brian Williams said Friday that his four-month suspension from the "NBC Nightly News" for lying about his reporting experience in Iraq was "torture" and that he didn't deliberately mislead viewers on the broadcast. “I told the story correctly for years before I told it incorrectly," he said. Williams' interview on the 'Today' show comes a day after the network announced that he would not return to the evening newscast, but would take on a new role as a breaking news anchor for MSNBC." [HuffPost's Michael Calderone]

*BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR* - Here's a dog that's scared of a turtle.

*WHEN WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET OUT OF OUR FARTS?* - Greatest local story of the year. Tim Regan: "Popular Adams Morgan bar Madam’s Organ was fined $500 yesterday for leaving its windows open while a live band played there one year ago. The Alcoholic Beverage Control Board said in an order released yesterday that the 18th Street NW hangout was being fined specifically for violating a settlement agreement brokered in 2008… Adams Morgan owner Bill Duggan admits the drummer did crack open the window slightly. Why? 'He opened the window to let [a] fart out,' says Duggan. *'He cracked it open for five minutes, then the inspector showed up.' 'Twenty f--g years with not one violation and this is what they came up with,'* Duggan says." [Borderstan]

*COMFORT FOOD*

- Every death in "Game of Thrones," season five.

- An honest trailer for "Toy Story."

*TWITTERAMA*

@delrayser: Founder of Comcast has died. Funeral services will be held next Thursday between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

jimantle: That's good, because he's the only candidate who can put them back together. MT @alexis_levinson Carson is cracking the crowd up

@blakehounshell: Your daily reminder that Donald Trump has not yet filed his FEC paperwork.

*Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson (eliot@huffingtonpost.com) or Arthur Delaney (arthur@huffingtonpost.com). Follow us on Twitter @HuffPostHill (twitter.com/HuffPostHill). Sign up here: http://huff.to/an2k2e*-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

The Bank of England has started a blog called "Bank Underground." (The name is a play on the fact that the bank is located at the Bank station on London's Underground system.)

So far, it's fascinating. The first post has some nice charts about deflation forecasts but the second one was a real eyebrow-raiser: Driverless cars might wipe out the motor insurance business.

That is not trivial: The auto-insurance business booked $33 billion in global revenues in 2013, according to a 2014 McKinsey report. Yet because driverless cars of the type being researched by Google, Uber and Apple don't actually require drivers and, in theory, don't make the mistakes drivers do, all that is now at risk. The BofE writes:

The entire basis of motor insurance, which mainly exists because people crash, could also be upended. Harvesting data on individual drivers is key for insurers to predict the riskiness of people – more information means smarter pricing. But self-driving cars take the driver out of the equation – a 17 year old male and 35 year old female could now receive the same car insurance quote – with the vehicle as the key determinant of risk.

It's not all bad news for insurers, however. The Bank sees their business evolving rather than going to the wall:

Will this wipe out traditional motor insurance?

Maybe not. It’s feasible that some motor incidents may still require traditional insurance, even if driving habits change significantly. Damage and injuries caused by trees falling onto driverless cars could be subsumed under health insurance or shift to household contents insurance, according to a study by RAND.

Second, manufacturers may want to partner with insurance companies. After all, insurers will have the existing organisational structures, customer links and expertise to provide insurance.

... [and] Retail motor insurance – currently based on the relationship between a driver and their insurance company – might increasingly mould into commercial, inter-company insurance contracts.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how Cristiano Ronaldo spends his money Reported by Business Insider 4 hours ago.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act would bring higher employment but also higher deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

On Friday, the CBO along with the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) released a report outlining the economic and budgetary impact of eliminating the healthcare overhaul signed into law in 2010.

The report said that, excluding macroeconomic feedback, federal deficits would increase by $353 billion over the period from 2016 and 2025.

However, the repeal of the ACA would boost the labor supply, resulting in an average GDP increase of 0.7 percent from 2021-2025. The increased economic output would also reduce deficits by $216 billion between 2016 and 2025, largely due to a jump in taxable income.

"All told, CBO and JCT estimate that *repealing the ACA would raise federal deficits by $137 billion over the 2016–2025 period* through its impact on direct spending and on revenues," the report said. "A repeal would reduce deficits during the first half of the decade but would increase them by steadily rising amounts from 2021 through 2025.

The estimates are illustrated by the chart below, with "macroeconomic feedback" being the net gain from increased economic activity (i.e increased tax revenues).

The CBO also estimated that if the ACA were repealed, the number of nonelderly Americans without health insurance would rise by 19 million-24 million people per year from 2016 to 2025.

The report comes as the Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on King v. Burwell, a highly anticipated case that questions whether the IRS has the right to extend healthcare subsidies for coverage purchased on federal exchanges. The plaintiffs argue that the law only allows tax credits for coverage purchased on the state-run marketplaces.

It is important to note, however, that the CBO's estimates reflect the cost of a full repeal of the law and not the results of a Supreme Court ruling.

The report said:

CBO and JCT’s baseline projections and the estimates in this report reflect the way the law is currently being implemented, with subsidies available through all exchanges, but the Court could rule that the law does not authorize subsidies in some states. If that happened, CBO and JCT would reduce their projections of spending on those subsidies under current law and would reduce their estimates of the savings generated by repealing the ACA’s coverage provisions—although the magnitude of those reductions is uncertain and would depend in part on the specific details of the Court’s opinion.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Forget the Apple Watch — here's the new watch everyone on Wall Street wants Reported by Business Insider 9 minutes ago.

The countdown is on for the U.S. Supreme Court decision on King v. Burwell, the Virginia case that will decide the fate of Affordable Care Act subsidies for those signed up for health insurance through federally facilitated marketplaces in 34 states. Virginia is among those states. The ruling on... Reported by dailypress.com 36 minutes ago.

(Adds close of special session, passage of budget)
By Bill Cotterell
TALLAHASSEE, Fla., June 19 (Reuters) - Florida legislators wrapped up a rancorous special session on Friday with passage of a $78 billion state budget, narrowly avoiding a state government shutdown at the end of the month.
"This has been an unprecedented six months, something we haven't seen in decades," said state Representative Richard Corcoran, a Land O' Lakes Republican who chairs the House budget committee.
The three-week special session ended after a 97-17 House vote on the budget.
A standoff between the Republican-controlled House and Senate over expanding Medicaid coverage to serve about 800,000 working poor Floridians caused the state's regular 60-day session to end in disarray on April 28. Medicaid is a government health insurance program for the poor.
The Senate proposed a market-based plan for using federal money to underwrite private healthcare coverage. But the more conservative House balked at accepting anything derived from President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, a law Republicans strongly oppose.
Without a budget for the fiscal year starting July 1, lawmakers reconvened on June 1 and worked out compromises to fund a "low-income pool" of local, state and federal money to reimburse hospitals for care of the uninsured poor.
The Senate sought again to expand Medicaid eligibility, but the House held firm.
Legislators gave Governor Rick Scott a $400 million package of tax cuts, which he signed this week. A breakthrough in prolonged budget negotiations came near midnight on Monday, with the sudden emergence of $300 million in a wide range of programs and building projects - dubbed "turkeys" in the legislative process - to smooth ruffled feathers.
Democrats objected not only to rejection of federal Medicaid money, but also to what they called a short-changing of environmental protection spending.
Florida voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment last fall requiring one-third of state real estate development taxes to be spent on land acquisition and water protection, but Republican legislative leaders spread the money among a wide range of programs that they said met the conservation criteria.
Scott, a conservative Republican, can use his line-item veto to cull parts of the budget before signing it next week.
When the Legislature adjourned three days early in late April, unable to pass a budget, Scott had ordered state agencies to draw up contingency lists of essential functions like prison operations and child protective services that would have to be maintained if a budget were not passed by July 1 and state agencies were forced to shutter.
(Editing by David Adams and Will Dunham)

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 23 hours ago.

Blue Jay Wireless, which offers discounted cellphone services through the federal Lifeline program, has “extended employment offers” to several former or outgoing Hawaii Health Connector employees, the telecommunications service told PBN Friday. As of June 12, 29 Hawaii Health Connector temporary employees received layoff notices as the health insurance exchange winds down operations and transitions all technology functions to the federal system. The federal Lifeline program, which was created… Reported by bizjournals 23 hours ago.

There may be more jobs in Florida, but for many, it doesn't mean they're much better off.

Gov. Rick Scott announced more than 16,000 jobs were created in Florida in May, but the unemployment number has ticked up slightly from the previous month.

[WEB EXTRA: Tips for job seekers | County-by-county unemployment numbers]

Florida unemployment is now at 5.7 percent, with Central Florida's nine counties averaging out to 6.0 percent. That's higher than the national average of 5.5 percent.

Kimberly Ankeny, a mother of four who works two part-time jobs just to get by, said the job numbers don't really reflect the reality of job seekers in Central Florida.

"Every day I go on and try to look for jobs," said Ankeny. "They're all part-time and they pay minimum wage."

Ankeny said her reality now is a far cry from just a few years ago, when she had a full-time job.

"I was a 7-Eleven food service manager and also an assistant manager," said Ankeny. "I had full benefits and also full insurance, 401k. We were able to go on vacations, we were able to go out to eat and now there's none of that. I thought I would be with the company a long time and that was not the case."

Ankeny said benefits, especially health insurance, are a big deal for her because she has twins with cerebral palsy. Once the economy went south, the company began to sell off some stores. Things only got worse for her family when her husband passed away.

"That was very difficult for me and my kids to adjust to," said Ankeny. "Wondering what's going to happen next because he was the provider in the home. My daughter has to have eye surgery in August. I have to come up with $500. It's something that she needs, but we just don't know. We just take it day by day and just save as much as we can save and do what we can do, and have faith that things are going to come, that's all you can do."

She's not the only Central Floridian in that situation.

Vickie Martin, executive director of Christian HELP Employment & Resource Center, said 70 percent of the clients they see are underemployed. The organization assists job-seekers in their searches free of charge, and also provides other assistance to those needing it.

"A lot of employers ca not afford to have full-time employees," said Martin.

"I'm grateful for the jobs I do have," said Ankeny. "But even with part-time jobs, you're still one paycheck away from being homeless."

The job numbers don't specify the kinds of jobs being created or who is still unable to find work. Martin said there's no particular demographic or skill level they're seeing in common with those still looking for jobs.

"You still see that unemployed professional," said Martin. "Actually, some of the mid- to higher-level jobs are a lot sparser. There's a lot of entry-level jobs, but a lot less of those."

Certified financial planner Nancy Hecht says those jobs still may not be enough for many to pay the bills.

"Jobs that mostly that high school or college kids would take that a lot of older people who have been long-term unemployed are taking just to have a job," said Hecht. "There's service kinds of things like doing stock work in clothing stores, and grocery stores and things along those lines. Certainly not what a lot of people who lost their jobs in their former careers. You're seeing a lot of seasoned employees that have a lot of experience and can bring a lot to the table, are not even being looked at or interviewed."

For those people, it could mean taking a paycut and making sacrifices.

"It's that phrase the 'new normal,'" said Martin. "I would say it's unwise for anyone to be holding out hope that things will go back to the way that they once were pre-recession time. Some of the work people are getting is a little different. It may look a little different. You may need to make some personal adjustments to survive and thrive."

Hecht said the job numbers may also be deceiving because some people have just given up.

"I think there's a lot of people who have been long-term unemployed and have just gotten tired of trying to find a job and have completely pulled themselves out of the job hunt," said Hecht. "I think that's one of the reasons the numbers are better, because those people are not counted."

Martin said if you're in that boat, use the time off to work on your job skills.

"Slow time is grow time," said Martin. "What are you doing to improve your circumstances? If that's meaning more education, looking at your finances for financial review, then whatever it is, but this is the time to be ready when more opportunities come along."

She said in the meantime, take the work you find because a job is better than no job.

"If it's part-time or not what you want, it doesn't mean it keeps you out of being able to look for that right job," said Martin. "You never know who you will meet in that position, and it does prove that you want to work."

Ankeny said that's advice she takes to heart.

"Even if you don't have a job, get up every day like you have a job," said Ankeny. "Somewhere, the more popcorn you throw up in the air, the more's going to fall in your mouth. You don't know what tomorrow's going to be like, but you can always try to be at the best you can be." Reported by Click Orlando 22 hours ago.

It's been a rollercoaster week in the political world, beginning with Hillary Clinton shifting the gears of her campaign by holding her first big rally, which was immediately followed by the man we're going to call "Jeb! Bush!" finally officially announcing his own candidacy.

For those who are wondering, yes, we here at the Friday Talking Points editorial board are indeed seriously contemplating making our own executive editorial decision to call him "Jeb! Bush!" throughout the entire campaign season. Jimmy Fallon actually made a good suggestion on The Tonight Show this week, that we all (in an imitation Regis Philbin voice) scream "Jeb!" whenever discussing the candidate out loud (another editorial idea we are endorsing). Earlier in the week I toyed with "Jeb?" (which has got to be the shortest headline I've ever written in nine years of blogging), or possibly "...Jeb..." but neither truly captures the ridiculousness of the exclamation mark. So we're thinking of just doubling down on exclamatory punctuation and calling him "Jeb! Bush!" in the upcoming months. Let us know your thoughts in the comments, as always. If it gets too annoying, we'll stop, how's that?

After Jeb! Bush! and Hillary's rallies, the entire world of late-night comics loudly praised all that they hold holy, when the news broke that Donald Trump was semi-officially entering the Republican presidential race (note: he still hasn't filed his official paperwork). The jokes just write themselves!

Trump began his candidacy by calling Mexican immigrants "rapists," and then in an ever-so-classy way moved on to sneering at the "jerk" conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer, who is a "loser" because all he does is just "sit there." Krauthammer, for those unaware, uses a wheelchair. So this campaign will have no shortage of idiocies falling out of Trump's mouth, that is for certain.

If a few days go by without any Trump news to report on, journalists might want to check out his 2000 book The America We Deserve, which he used in an earlier feint towards a presidential run. There are all sort of fun things to mine out of this, Salon helpfully points out, such as Trump agreeing with Bernie Sanders: "I'm a conservative on most issues but a liberal on [healthcare reform].... we need, as a nation, to re-examine the single-payer plan."

A bit of trivia is worth mentioning that nobody seems to have noticed so far. Trump may have gotten the jump on whoever announces next on the Republican side, because Trump became the twelfth Republican to announce his presidential campaign. What this means is that the next entrant in the race will be unlucky thirteen. Who will be brave enough to defy this superstition? Who will be the thirteenth Republican to announce?

But we have to shift gears to a much more serious tone here, because this week ended with a tragic act of terrorism, in a South Carolina church. A young white supremacist shot up a Bible study group in an African-American church for purely racist reasons. After being arrested he has reportedly confessed to his crimes, and also to his racism.

Now, you'd think that domestic terrorism and racist violence would be pretty easy things to condemn. Unfortunately, you would be wrong. Fox News tried to offer up an alternative explanation for the brutal killings, that the terrorist (they didn't use that word, of course) was really against Christianity. This fits in with their "Christians as oppressed members of our society" theme, but had no actual basis in reality. Fox bent over backwards to try to spin the killings as something -- anything -- different than an act of domestic terrorism by a racist. They weren't the only ones, sadly.

Much of the media just flat-out refused to use the words "terrorism," or "terrorist." Republicans (normally the ones who regularly castigate Democrats for avoiding the word "terrorism") backpedaled furiously away from even admitting that race was a factor, as fast as they could. The Department of Justice issued a statement which was pretty clear: "This heartbreaking episode was undoubtedly designed to strike fear and terror into this community, and the department is looking at this crime from all angles, including as a hate crime and as an act of domestic terrorism." But few Republicans seemed to notice. Think I'm being unfair? Presidential candidate Marco Rubio spoke to conservatives after the shooting, and neglected to mention the shooting at all -- although he did find time to reaffirm his commitment to the Second Amendment. Rubio was merely the most egregious example, though. While some Republicans did have the courage to admit the reality of the situation, most either ducked or otherwise avoided the word "racism" entirely. The Huffington Post has a good roundup of what Republicans have been saying, if you've got the stomach for it. The worst of the bunch, by far, has got to be the National Rifle Association board member who actually blamed one of the victims since he was against allowing handguns to be carried in churches.

I mean, even white supremacists themselves are "worried Charleston shooting makes them look bad." It's pretty obvious what was in the young man's head, and it wasn't just free-floating hatred. It certainly wasn't anti-Christian hatred. It was racism, plain and simple. Why Republicans are refusing to admit this is unfathomable, in fact.

Moving on, because it is June, the Supreme Court is in the news. The two big decisions (on Obamacare subsidies and marriage equality) won't appear before the very end of the month, but we did get some other rulings this week. The Supremes also refused to take up a case where a North Carolina law was overturned, which keeps the ruling in place that forcing women seeking abortions to undergo an ultrasound and coercing doctors' speech are both unconstitutional laws. So score a victory for doctor-patient confidentiality and the First Amendment (governmentally-coerced speech is the exact opposite of free speech). Two other Supreme Court decisions were also announced on the subject of free speech (which I wrote about earlier this week, for those interested). One of these is fast becoming very relevant, as it dealt with Texas refusing to put the Confederate flag on a specialty license plate.

Which brings us to the "worst photo op of the week," which we're going to close on today. The Washington Post ran an article on how the murderous rampage at the South Carolina church is opening up an old debate in the state over the Confederate flag -- which used to fly over the statehouse, in a proud statement to the state's treasonous past. The flag has since been removed from the dome, but still proudly flies in a Civil War memorial monument on the statehouse grounds. So an enterprising photographer took a photo from just the right angle to show the United States flag and the South Carolina flag both flying at half-staff over the statehouse, while the Confederate flag flaps in the breeze at the top of its pole. If we were in charge of the Pulitzer Prize committee, this photo would automatically jump to the top of the list for this year's awards.

 

We have an *Honorable Mention* to hand out this week, for Democratic National Committee spokesperson Holly Shulman, who wrote the perfect response to the news that Donald Trump had entered the race. We're going to provide the text of her comment later (as a talking point), though, just because it is so downright priceless.

Snark aside, this week's winner of the *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* is none other than Senator Dianne Feinstein. Now, as any regular reader of this column can attest, we're not the biggest fans of our very own senior senator. However, on one subject DiFi (as we like to call her) stands head and shoulders above the all other politicians in Washington, with the possible exception of John McCain. That subject is torture.

Feinstein has been leading the charge to both get the American government to admit what it did -- torture prisoners -- and also to do everything humanly possible to make sure it never happens again. This goal got a lot closer this week, when Feinstein won a successful vote in the Senate to codify this basic idea -- not torturing anyone -- into federal law. President Obama, of course, changed America's course when he came into office by immediately banning torture, but since this was just a presidential directive, it could conceivably be overturned by any future president. This is important, since of the four Republicans running for the office who currently sit in the Senate, only two of them voted to permanently ban torture in U.S. law this week (Rand Paul and Ted Cruz). Of the other two, Lindsey Graham (who, due to his career as a military lawyer, should really know better) voted against it. Marco Rubio was too chicken to even vote, but later said he would have voted against it.

The vote was a stunningly-lopsided 78-21 to ban torture. All Democrats voted in favor of the restriction.

While this represents a strong statement of American values, the measure still has to make it through the Republican-controlled House, so there's no guarantee it'll make it to the president's desk in its current form.

Still, the credit for getting the measure through the Senate in such spectacularly bipartisan fashion belongs to Senator Feinstein. Feinstein has been instrumental in exposing the brutalities of America torturing prisoners in the past, and this week she was instrumental in trying to make it impossible for any future president to contemplate repeating the actions of George W. Bush.

For that we applaud DiFi, and she certainly deserves this week's *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* award. Well done, Senator Feinstein!

[Congratulate Senator Dianne Feinstein on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

If this column had been written two centuries ago, we might have come up with awards for either the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists. This week contained a severe disappointment for the Federalists, as it was announced that Alexander Hamilton would be retired from his position on all our ten-dollar bills in a few years, to make way for an as-yet-unnamed woman. Good thing it's over two hundred years from Hamilton's heyday, since the partisan bickering (or what would have been called "factionalism" back then) between Washington's Federalists and Jefferson's Anti-Federalists was actually much fiercer than anything we see in today's political world. Don't believe me? Read up on the history of the 1800 presidential election (or the "Revolution of 1800" as historians now call it).

Getting back to modern times, however, we're going to slightly rename this award this week, and give a *Most Disappointed Democrat Of The Week* to President Obama. For the 14th time during his presidency, Obama has had to weigh in once again on a tragic shooting. The words he said this time were different, because in his remarks he essentially admitted that nothing is going to change any time fast on the issue of guns in America. He's basically saying that America will continue to experience these tragedies over and over again as the price for doing absolutely nothing to solve the problem. That's pretty disappointing, but it's really Obama's own disappointment that comes through in his comments (which is why we renamed the award). Here's what the president said about the South Carolina tragedy:



I've had to make statements like this too many times. Communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times. We don't have all the facts, but we do know that once again innocent people were killed because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun. Now's the time for mourning and for healing, but let's be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence doesn't happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it. I say that recognizing that the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now. But it'd be wrong for me not to acknowledge it. And at some point, it's going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.



Pretty disappointing. But also very realistic. Obama has tried to champion commonsense changes to our gun laws before, only to be disappointed at the inaction of Congress on the issue. He's admitting this reality, which is indeed a disappointment.

So this week we're going to give Obama a *Most Disappointed Democrat Of The Week*, and we have to say we share in the president's feelings. These tragedies are going to continue happening on a regular basis, and until Americans realize that not every advanced country puts up with such things so blithely, nothing is going to change.

[Contact President Barack Obama on his White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his own disappointment.]

 

*Volume 351* (6/19/15)

Two program notes are in order, before we begin this week's talking points. The first is that while last week was notably the 350th of these columns, it also signified my ninth anniversary of being asked to write blog posts for the Huffington Post. My very first column was an effort to instill some backbone in Democrats, urging them to do their best to take back Congress, so it still actually has some relevance today.

The second program note is that this column will be on vacation next week. I can't even guarantee that I'll have a re-run column up on my website, in fact, and the best I can promise is that I'll see you all back here in two weeks. Just so nobody says I didn't warn them ahead of time, as it were.

OK, enough announcements, let's get right to this week's talking points, shall we?

 *   Racist terrorism*This one should be used whenever anyone -- in the media, in politics, whatever -- tries to use weasel words to describe the South Carolina tragedy.

"I'm sorry, but I can't use the terms you are using to describe what took place. This was nothing short of an act of domestic terrorism, from an individual who was murderously racist. Why is that so hard for some people to say? Terrorism is violence intended to bring change to society through fear. That's exactly what this young man was trying to do. It is a textbook example of domestic terrorism. The perpetrator himself has reportedly admitted to his own racist motivations for his heinous crimes. So please, let's call it exactly what it was intended to be and what it was: domestic racist terrorism."

 *   Maybe we should call in James Bond*The Pope certainly stirred things up among Republicans this week, by pointing out that mankind is the steward of the Earth.

"You know, I don't think there's anything in the Bible that talks about the proper profit/loss ratio for polluting businesses, which might come as a shock to some who are denouncing the Pope's new encyclical on the planet's environment. Republicans have long been advocates of 'cafeteria Catholicism,' where they pick and choose which Catholic doctrines they agree with (such as on abortion), and ignore the doctrines they disagree with (such as on the death penalty or war). I guess climate change is going to be one of those they ignore, at least from what they're saying after the encyclical was released. One Fox News commenter actually went as far as calling the Pope 'the most dangerous person on the planet.' Wow. Maybe we should call in James Bond or something, if he's really that dangerous."

 *   Congress does its job for two hours, then punts*This is just pathetic. There's really no other word for it.

"Ever wonder why President Obama feels the need to occasionally act without involving Congress? The answer is that Congress is incapable of doing even the most important of its jobs. Ten months ago -- that's ten months ago -- Obama began a military campaign against the Islamic State. At the time, Republicans complained that Congress should have been consulted. Obama stated that he had the authority to act, but then sent over a proposal for a new 'authorization for the use of military force,' in an effort to share the warmaking responsibility with Congress. This week -- the first time in ten months, mind you -- the House finally spent two hours debating the war. Then they gave up. Democrats had to use parliamentary procedure to even force the debate, because the Republicans running Congress have not done anything on the war with the Islamic State. Nothing. One of the Democrats pushing the issue, Representative Jim McGovern, did not mince his words, stating that Congress was, quote, guilty of moral cowardice, unquote. I could not agree more. They are indeed shirking their constitutional duties -- another phrase McGovern used -- and every citizen should bear this in mind the next time Republicans complain that Obama is acting without their approval."

 *   Argle-bargle*These next two are from Greg Sargent's Washington Post blog, where he's been doing a bang-up job exposing the doublethink of Republicans on what will happen if the Supreme Court strikes down the Obamacare subsidies. Some explanation is required before you read these next two talking points, though.

If the subsidies are struck down in the King v. Burwell case, Republicans swear they've got a plan to fix the problem -- but they won't say what this plan is, because they're already afraid of the political backlash it will cause. In essence, they are going to try to continue the subsidies for the next two years (which puts the end of them conveniently beyond the next election), while attempting to gut all the other parts of Obamacare. But in doing so, they have to square a circle of Republican orthodoxy. As far as Republicans are concerned, everything about Obamacare is bad. That's where they start from. But now they're beginning to admit that yanking the subsidies is going to hurt people. The New York Times has a good rundown of some of these hilariously pretzel-like statements (example: "We cannot sit idly by as millions of Americans lose their health insurance" from Senator Bill Cassidy from Louisiana).

Sargent has been blistering in his takedown of the core contradiction in this Republican position. The background to his comment below was a quote from a House member who stated: "I'd be willing to [continue the subsidies] on a temporary basis as we transition to something better. We all represent people in our districts who are victims of this law. We want to take care of our constituents."

Sargent then helpfully puts this in context, which we're gladly going to use as one of this week's talking points (note: emphasis in both these next talking points is from the original):



Yep, all those millions who would lose Obamacare subsidies are victims of Obamacare, and Republicans will protect them from Obamacare by temporarily giving them back Obamacare before repealing it for all its beneficiaries and replacing it with argle-bargle.



 *   Look over there!*That was pretty funny, but later in the week Sargent absolutely knocked it out of the park.



The GOP argument is basically this: Obamacare is to blame for the awful outcome of millions of people losing Obamacare, so Republicans will protect all those people from Obamacare by temporarily restoring their Obamacare, before repealing it entirely for all its beneficiaries, and replacing it with... "oh, wow, look over there, a unicorn is wandering through the Capitol!"



 *   All ten of them!*Hoo boy. This one speaks for itself.

"Disgraced former Speaker of the House Tom DeLay is now a political consultant. That means people actually pay him to advise them about how Washington works. If I were a client of his, though, I'd be thinking about asking for a refund. Recently, expressing his concern that the Supreme Court was going to legalize gay marriage across America, DeLay stood up for constitutional knowledge, saying: 'People don't understand the Constitution. We haven't taught our children now for three or four generations what the Constitution is, and the separation of powers.' He then zeroed in on the problem of the Supreme Court, vowing: 'If they rule against marriage, we will all defy them.' Only problem was, Tom DeLay is obviously just as uninformed about America's form of government as those children he earlier was so concerned about. He swore he'd stand up to the Supreme Court because: 'It's not in their authority to write law by ten unelected, unaccountable people, lawyers.' I'd like to take this opportunity to bet Tom DeLay a cool million bucks that he can't name all 'ten' Supreme Court justices. Think he'll take me up on it?"

 *   Much-needed (smirk!) seriousness (guffaw!)*And finally, we close where we began, with the uproarious political news of Donald Trump entering the race. As mentioned in the awards section, Holly Shulman wins the "best response to Trump's announcement" award, hands down, for authoring the Democratic National Committee's reaction statement, which is reproduced in full below:



Today, Donald Trump became the second major Republican candidate to announce for president in two days. He adds some much-needed seriousness that has previously been lacking from the GOP field, and we look forward to hearing more about his ideas for the nation.



 

Chris Weigant blogs at:Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

 

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 23 hours ago.

Agency Management Institute has just concluded their 2015 Salaries/Benefits survey and the results are an interesting commentary on how the agency model is evolving.

Des Moines, IA (PRWEB) June 20, 2015

Agency Management Institute has just concluded their 2015 Salaries/Benefits survey and the results are an interesting commentary on how the agency model is evolving.

The survey results included:· 1,537 respondents
· Agency size ranged from 1 employee to over 150 employees
· All regions of the US and Canada were represented although there were not enough Canadian responses for statistical validity

Most salaries either held steady or rose in the 2015 results. One area that that saw its salary range decline or at best, hold steady was the CEOs salary. As agency salaries increase and the ability to increase billable rates or project pricing has not – it appears as though some CEOs are robbing from themselves to increase the pay of their key employees.

The media department also took a hit in some cases. This may suggest that as agencies buy less traditional media (it seems like agencies are either specializing in this or hiring it out more and more) they are trimming some of their more expensive employees and keeping those middle-income team members.

Copywriters and content writers also saw a healthy increase in salaries, ranging from 5-10%.

Interestingly art directors and graphic designers did not see that same kind of increase; in fact in most categories they stayed steady with their 2014 salaries.

The most significant increases came in the digital departments, with programmers leading the way. The average increase in this department was 10+% over the 2014 salaries.

Clearly, agencies value their employees and try very hard to reward their team with a good set of benefits. In fact, most agencies’ benefits packages rival that of much larger companies.

Agencies are scrambling to sort out the healthcare changes and many shared that they expect their benefit package will change dramatically over the next few years.

There were no significant changes to the benefits offered between 2014 and 2015, other than it seems like agencies were more likely to pay out some form of bonus this past year.

Average vacation time is on the increase. From AMI’s work with agencies, we believe this increase is a combination of longer tenured employees and millennials negotiating for more time off instead of salary increases.

"The survey results indicate some good news – agencies are profitable enough that they can increase salaries and some looming danger – agencies are clearly worried that some of their key employees are vulnerable to other job offers as the economy gets stronger," commented Drew McLellan, Agency Management Institute's CEO.

It’s interesting to note that in almost every size category, CEOs held steady or actually took a decrease while their rank and file employees all saw some sort of increase. It’s also worth noting that it’s clear where agencies are placing their bets in terms of employees who deliver value to them. The largest increases were in the account service, digital and copy/content areas, while art direction and media held steady or took a decline.

It seems that agencies have added more traffic and production staff. That had been a declining category in terms of the number of agencies that had those positions but that trend reversed with this survey.

The trend that is now so commonplace we probably need to stop calling it a trend is the work from home/remote employee trend. More and more agencies are embracing this concept, especially those in markets where the labor pool is either in high demand or scarce.

Overall, the results are encouraging. Agencies are rewarding their best performers with increases in salaries and a wonderful array of benefits. If you find your agency at the low end of either – I’d highly recommend you correcting the issue before your competitors poach your best employees. We are entering into a very competitive employment market and you should protect your most valuable asset – you’re A-level employees.

The 40-page report includes:

· Definitions of each job/role so that respondents and report readers can make sure they're comparing apples to apples
· The second section reports the salary results for over 40 positions. These salary ranges are broken down by agency size, region of the country and we also share the overall ranges.
· The benefits section shows how agencies are handling everything from bonuses, health insurance coverage, vacation and other perks
· The final section is our analysis of the results

You can purchase the report for $99 at http://agencymanagementinstitute.com/agency-tools/salary-survey/

Agency Management Institute is an agency network representing independently owned advertising, marketing, public relations, digital and media agencies throughout North America. Over 100 agencies are members of this association.

It offers agency training, consulting and agency owner networks for small to mid sized advertising, marketing, PR, digital and media agencies so they can increase their AGI by at least 25%, attract better clients and employees and exceed the agency owner’s life/financial goals. Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.

The Supreme Court is headed into the last two weeks of its term, saving some of the biggest decisions for last. The status of same-sex marriage and subsidies for health insurance under Obamacare are among the most critical issues pending. Chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford reports. Reported by CBS News 13 hours ago.

Rumors that major health insurers are courting one another could shake up the health insurance industry. Reported by Motley Fool 10 hours ago.

Amid the flurry of M&A activity, these 3 insurers are stand outs for investors. Reported by Motley Fool 7 hours ago.