Links, 4-11-12

Rick Santorum has dropped out of the race, only a few days after Gingrich declared that Romney was "conservative enough" to win the Republican nomination.

President Obama has gone on the offensive against Paul Ryan's budget plan (calling it "thinly veiled social Dawinism") and is trying to tie Mitt Romney to the plan.  The Economist wonders whether that's a winning strategy.

Nine major physicians' groups released a report identifying 45 tests and procedures as overused and unproven.  Accountable Care Organizations, like this one in NJ, are being formed to try and coordinate care and cut down on unnecessary procedures while increasing quality of care.

Here's an interesting snapshot of which countries spend the most on groceries

The first "World Happiness Report," which examines what makes people happy in different places, was released.  Here are some of the takeaway points.  The heading summarizes these as "be wealthy, married, and have a job," but there are some twists -- including this one about employment:

Unemployment obviously reduces happiness, but not because of what you may think. It’s not the loss of income, but the loss of things like self-esteem and workplace social life that lead to a drop in happiness. High unemployment rates can trigger unhappiness even in the employed, who suddenly become fearful of losing their jobs. According to the study, even low-quality jobs yield more satisfaction than being unemployed.

More Poverty Policy Links, 4-8-12

A front page article in the NY Times today explores the reactions of states and individuals to welfare reform.  The article interviews single mothers who've come up with a wide range of solutions after their benefits have been cut off, discusses what states have done with extra money from their block grants after reducing the rolls, and asks scholars with various viewpoints whether the law has helped or hurt.  Here's some background on how the article was written and the difficulty of measuring poverty (particularly interesting is the divergence between reported income and reported spending).

Meanwhile, an econ professor at Chicago asks if welfare reform has been reversed, pointing out that increases in food stamps and unemployment benefits have made up for a good deal of the reduced spending on TANF cash aid.

One popular talking about is the "culture of poverty".  The New York Times featured a piece not too long ago exploring a resurgence of this notion, but from a different point of view.  Here's some history on how the term got started.  An article for teachers and school officials calls the old view a "myth" and suggests some ways to overcome it.

Lastly, new data indicate that more children are living in high-poverty areas -- that concentrated poverty may be increasing.

Poverty & Policy Links, 4-6-12

A new measure of poverty has been developed.  Here's the story behind the new measure of poverty that's being rolled out and some background on how the calculations in the article were made.  The Economist agrees that the new measure is an improvement.

PBS reports on Dan Ariely's study of American opinions on wealth inequality in which Americans consistently underrated the amount of inequality in our country.  And here's Timothy Noah's essay on "why everyone overestimates American equality of opportunity".  Meanwhile, a recent analysis finds that the only major difference in mobility between the US and other developed nations is that fewer lower-income people become middle-income.

A new investigation of government programs finds that many people who oppose welfare and consider themselves self-sufficient Middle Class Americans accept a wide range of government aid.  Indeed, only 32% of entitlement benefits go to families in the bottom quintile of the income distribution.

Social entrepreneur David Bornstein writes that anti-poverty programs should focus on developing people's capabilities and other "soft" skills rather than measures of "well-being".  Here are some examples of these types of programs.

Mixed-income housing is being implemented with mixed success in Pittsburgh.


Nick Kristof writes about the impact of "toxic stress" on students

Here's the story of a young, white, homeless couple who defy stereotypes

Here's The Daily Show's take on recent rhetoric surrounding poverty

Links, 4-4-12

The discussion in the Supreme Court last week prompted outrage among many liberal commentators:

Steven Pearlstein writes that the questions about requiring citizens to eat broccoli or buy cell phones misunderstand the issue because the power to tax, regulate, or mandate anything (e.g. airbags) always runs the risk of taxing, regulating, or mandating "stupidly".

Paul Begala writes that "your health care is now in the hands of the right-wing majority of the Supreme Court" and writes that

The oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act give us very little reason to have faith in the wisdom of the court. Some of the justices came off as smug, arrogant, and frighteningly detached from the realities of everyday life in America

And Supreme Court expert Jeffrey Toobin writes that the characterization of the health care mandate as "unprecedented" by Anthony Kennedy and others is a "misperception" on all levels and that Congress has had sole authority to determine how to implement the Commerce Clause the last 75 years.

For example, the Justices had no trouble upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which used the clause to mandate the integration of hotels and restaurants. “It may be argued that Congress could have pursued other methods to eliminate the obstructions it found in interstate commerce caused by racial discrimination,” Justice Tom C. Clark wrote, for his unanimous brethren. “But this is a matter of policy that rests entirely with the Congress, not with the courts. How obstructions in commerce may be removed—what means are to be employed—is within the sound and exclusive discretion of the Congress.” In other words, Justice Kennedy had it backward. The “heavy burden” is not on the defenders of the law but on its challengers. Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it is—or should be—a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government.

Politico wonders what's next for health care if the mandate is struck down, with some worrying that it might pave the way for the repeal of environmental and labor laws.

The Economist wonders whether there are still Conservatives who oppose the health care law but who believe it's constitutional or if everybody has conflated good/bad with constitutional/unconstitutional.

Nate Silver explores whether the current Supreme Court is the most conservative in modern history


President Obama went after the GOP budget designed by Paul Ryan, calling it a "radical vision"

60 Minutes reported Sunday on new research finding that sugar is toxic and can lead to heart disease and cancer independent of its effects on weight gain.

Many of you wrote about early childhood education in your ed policy papers.  Here's a brief from University of Chicago's Nobel Prize winning James Heckman on the importance of investment in young children.

A new report argues that while more Americans obtaining college degrees, the numbers haven't increased fast enough to keep up with the demands of the private sector.  The US now ranks 16th in the world in percentage of adults with a college degree.

With a Romney nomination (Romination?) looking more and more likely, the Washington Post says to let the veepstakes begin and explores ten of the most likely nominees

Utah's Republican Attorney General is pushing for a slightly less confrontational crackdown on illegal immigration, including allowing guest worker visas.