Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Saturday, January 17, 2026
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 1012)
Economy

After closing Thursday, with the stock market continuing its record-setting climb, U.S. stock-index futures climbed Friday, suggesting the broad S&P 500 could post gains for the fifth day in a row.

As of 9:15 a.m. ET, Dow Jones Industrial Average futures climbed 16 points, or 0.1 percent, to 16438, S&P 500 futures advanced 0.5 point, or 0.03 percent, to 1837 and Nasdaq 100 futures rose 2 points, or 0.06 percent, to 3583.

Ahead of Thursday’s open, the Labor Department reported jobless claims fell by 42,000 to 338,000 last week. The Dow closed at its 50th all-time high Thursday, while the S&P 500 put its 44th record close in the bag. Both stock-market indexes are up more than 25 percent on a year-to-date basis in what would be their best years since 1996 and 1997, respectively.

Investors, not surprisingly, aren’t flocking to purchase Treasury bonds, which have been sluggish these past 14 days, pushing yields even higher. The yield on the benchmark 10-year bond climbed to 3.011 percent, which is the highest level since July 2011.

In corporate news, General Motors (GM) said it would recall 1.5 million vehicles in China over safety concerns. Analysts at Macquarie cut Twitter (TWTR) to “underperform” from “neutral.”

In commodities, U.S. crude oil futures climbed 8 cents, or 0.08 percent, to $99.63 a barrel. Wholesale New York Harbor gasoline dipped 0.44 percent to $2.801 a gallon. Gold fell $1.10, or 0.09 percent, to $1,211 a troy ounce.

But the stock market success has not translated into a much better labor market, with millions of Americans set to lose their unemployment benefits Saturday. The development will no doubt spark another battle between proponents of smaller government who worry long periods of joblessness hurting Americans’ prospects of long-term unemployability,  and advocates for jobless benefits who say the move will hurt the overall economy.

Federal emergency benefits will end when funds run out for a program created during the recession to supplement the benefits that states provide. The cutoff will initially affect 1.3 million people, but 1.9 million more will lose benefits by mid-2014 when their 26 weeks of state paychecks run out, according to the National Employment Law Project.

Benefits average about $300 a week.

After closing Thursday, with the stock market

News, Policy

[show-map id=’6′]

Above is a map of ObamaCare enrollment numbers by state outlining how many Medicaid enrollments each state has reported, versus how many private enrollments, which includes those who may not even pay in the end or by the deadline (note: the administration’s numbers for the second half of Dec. have not been added yet, because they are an abstract, unofficial claim that cannot be quantified).

As previously reported, the constant re-assessing of payment deadlines has caused mass confusion along consumers, many of whom are having a difficult time navigating the new law.

The map above shows the latest ObamaCare enrollment numbers by state for the period from 10/01/13 to 11/30/13 based on data reported to the Department of Health and Human Services as of 12/10/13.

At his end-of-the-year press conference, President Obama said that 1.2 million people have been added to the ObamaCare enrollment numbers, citing a steep increase in interest over the month of December. However, according to Health and Human Services, a look at the ObamaCare enrollment numbers by state paint a frightening picture of an even more out-of-control federal budget, induced by an over-expansion of Medicaid.

By the end of March, the Obama administration hopes to increase the number of people on Medicaid by 9 million, and the number in private plans by 7 million. But nationwide Medicaid enrollments totaling 803,077 so far have far outpaced enrollments in private plans on the exchanges, which have only totaled 364,682. And the ObamaCare enrollment numbers by state are worse than they look nationwide.

It is important to note that both the ObamaCare enrollment numbers by state and nationwide include applicants who may or may not have made their first premium payment either directly by the Marketplace or to the issuer. Furthermore, because of the secrecy from the Obama administration, not only can we cannot determine how many are paying consumers, but figures pertinent to the potential for an insurance death spiral, i.e. the number of healthy vs. sick; young vs. old, etc., are also not known.

In some states, including Iowa and Washington, those who selected a private plan make-up just 10 percent of the total ObamaCare enrollment numbers. In Washington, 154,060 have reportedly been enrolled in Medicaid, while just 17,770 selected a private plan. In Iowa, 7,382 have reportedly been enrolled in Medicaid, while just 757 have selected a private plan. In some state it is worse still, such is the case with Oregon, whose Medicaid signups represent over 90 percent of all ObamaCare enrollment numbers for the state.

The states are assessed by severity, with deep blue representing states projected to have a stable enough enrollment ratio to protect their financial solvency, at least in the near-term. These states — barring detrimental information regarding the risk pools — will likely meet the administrations Medicaid to private ObamaCare enrollment ratio.

Most of the states in the dark blue/green shade appear to be in long-term trouble, but we simply do not have enough information to make that assessment at this time. There are some, however, that may make the necessary ratio, but again, we simply do not have enough information to know that.

Those states in light red are headed for real financial problems, with it likely being the case that they will be far off the administration’s own ratio, causing them to deal with serious short-falls in the future.

But, the states in dark red are on the far end of the spectrum, and are headed for financial Armageddon. These states will definitely be off the mark barring some serious turn around numbers being reported by HHS in January, which unfortunately, population data for each individual state makes very unlikely.

Again, because we do not know the ratio of healthy vs. sick; young vs. old, etc., we are likely giving the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt. It would be a big bone we are throwing, because the reality is more than likely — based on concerns voiced by insurers and various surveys — that the balance is what we expected it to be, with too few young and healthy in the risk pools.

Worth noting, is that the administration’s decision to delay mandates based on political expediency, probably hurt the ObamaCare enrollment numbers by state. If consumers would have been thrown into the pools, it is likely that many of them would have signed up, which would have off-set the ratio.

In Massachusetts and Hawaii, there is not enough information being made available by HHS to determine how ObamaCare will impact their budgets or projected shortfalls. In Massachusetts, however, it is both obvious and unnecessary due to RomneyCare.

[table id=9 /]

Overall, the average Medicaid share of all the total ObamaCare enrollment is approximately 70 percent, far above the ratio the Obama administration was shooting for. According to a report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total federal health expenditures under ObamaCare were projected to top $5 trillion by 2022. But that was based on projections that the Obama administration would hit their target, which thus far, they are far from achieving.

We at PeoplesPunditDaily.com will keep updating you as the Health and Human Services Department makes more information available for scrutiny.

A map of ObamaCare enrollment numbers by

News, Opinion

A rural Oregon county is serving as a microcosm of what can happen when we put our faith in the false promises of government, and it inevitably breaks them. North Valley Community Watch is serving as the last line of defense for the law-abiding citizens of Josephine County, Oregon, after the government could no longer afford to fund the sheriff’s department.

The Josephine County Sheriff’s Office was nearly dismantled when voters rejected a May 2012 tax levy to make up a $7.5 million budget shortfall. It was an ill-conceived measure, designed in haste by politicians who thought they would be able to rely upon federal subsidies forever.

They have a long history of being used by the federal government, who took an interest first in the county’s gold mining activities until timber took its place. Today, the federal government owns almost 70 percent of the land in Josephine County, including 28 percent allocated to the Bureau of Land Management, alone. And that was just fine for county officials who chose — most unwisely — to depend upon the federal government rather than diversify the county’s economy.

The federal government, being broke themselves and under the direction of Obama’s green energy policies, cut the county funding. Now, they have no solution to their current economic problem, save for the same solution every out-of-ideas politician proposes, raise taxes.

The major crimes unit has been closed, and dozens of prisoners were released from the county jail after the department reduced operational hours to Monday-Friday, 8 hours a day. The Josephine County Sheriff’s Department issued a press release stating their deputies would only be responding to what they deemed to be “life-threatening situations.”

That’s when Ken Selig — the longest-serving law enforcement officer in all three local agencies before he was forced to retire from the department due to the budget shortfall — felt he had no other choice except to guard his community’s vulnerable members.

Selig and his friend Pete Scaglione formed the North Valley Community Watch to serve as a county-wide organization dedicated to helping citizens in non-life-threatening situations, particularly property crimes.

“Who else is going to protect you when your government can’t?” Selig said. And apparently, he wasn’t the only person who felt so inclined.

North Valley Community Watch is one of a handful of community groups that have formed after the government failed their communities, pressuring them to pass a tax that Selig and others say they cannot afford.

Selig says it is pure politics behind the county government’s decision to not appropriate funds they do have toward law enforcement. “The key is to get the funding somewhere where the local people can get the services they need,” Selig said.

But according to Josephine County Commissioner Keith Heck, God-forbid residents of the county have the nerve to oppose the tax and protect themselves, instead. The less-learned just need to realize there is no place to cut. “The county coffers are at the bottom of the barrel,” he said.

“There is this little shimmer out there of some giant Santa that is going to come and drop all this money on us because we are well-meaning folks,” he added. “The sleigh is broken, the deer are dead, it’s not going to happen. We have to figure out how we are going to solve this problem.”

Heck says he wants everyone to know supports neighborhood watch groups and citizens actively participating in community safety programs, but that an unsubstantiated increase in “aggressive” community watch groups make him worried the situation could escalate to violence. Of course, it would be hard for him to substantiate his claim since there is no police force to document the supposed “aggressive” instances.

“These things seem good on the PR side but fail a little in the reality side,” Heck said, at adding the only real solution is for the county to approve more funds, or taxes. Since the funding will not be approved, and he disagrees with citizens looking after each other, Heck and county officials offered up one more brainless idea — move.

That’s right, the Sheriff’s Office encouraged people to relocate. The actual statement said:

… the Sheriff’s Office regretfully advises that, if you know you are in a potentially volatile situation (for example, you are a protected person in a restraining order that you believe the respondent may violate), you may want to consider relocating to an area with adequate law enforcement services.

While county officials offer nothing but higher taxes and uprooting your family, Ken Selig and the North Valley Community Watch are taking action, meeting once a month to discuss crime and teach roughly 100 members about personal safety. The group, thus far, trained a “response team,” which is made up of 12 people who will respond to the scene of a non-life-threatening situation when called.

Selig said North Valley Community Watch believes that there is no substitute for well-trained law enforcement, but they feel they have no other choice but to protect their community.

“We believe responsible citizens doing responsible things make it hard for criminals to do irresponsible things,” he said.

So far, despite Heck’s claim there is an increase in “aggressive” community groups, not one of Selig’s members have had to fire a single shot.

Watch groups, which were once seen as vital to the health and safety of our communities, had been demonized nationally by media and politicians who share an interest in the gun control agenda during and after the George Zimmerman case in Florida. But Selig and others who stand ready to aid their fellow-citizens have proven how vital it is to rely upon each other, rather than government.

During the George Zimmerman case, Democrats made crystal clear that they would rather live in a world without the right to bear arms, the right to self-defense, and once where the only entity legally within their right to retain the ability to defend one’s own person and property, must be sanctioned by the government.

But amid reports such as the one from Josephine County, and many neighborhoods in Detroit who have been forced to take the same approach as Ken Selig, they are asking for a world that is far too dangerous for the governed.

A rural Oregon county is serving as

Elections

Democratic incumbent North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan seeing her chance of reelection shrink amid broken promises and failed rollout of ObamaCare.

The North Carolina Senate race is the eighth article in a succession of articles offering expanded analysis on the ratings for the PPD 2014 Senate Map. Vulnerable incumbent Democratic Senator Kay Hagan is running in one of two states President Obama lost in 2012 after winning in 2008.

Thus far, I have released expanded analysis for the following Senate races:

Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, and North Carolina, with West Virginia — which is rated “Safe Republican” on the 2014 Senate Map — soon to be released as the ninth article.

Hagan has benefited from weak opposition and also the fact she raised a great deal of money. Yet, to a significant degree, the ObamaCare rollout has erased any advantaged she may have had as the incumbent in the North Carolina Senate race, along with a ton of money. In fact, the North Carolina Senate race has already become the most expensive race in the country.

Between the shutdown and her war chest, Hagan had definitely strengthened her chances of being reelected. Even before ObamaCare, however, she still had major problems in the Tar Heel State. She supports gay marriage in a state where it was smoked on the ballot, despite liberal pollsters showing otherwise, and she supports gun control restrictions that are far too left for North Carolina.

But that was then, and this is now, when ObamaCare will be at the forefront of the debate in the North Carolina Senate race, as it will with all of the midterm elections.

Sen. Kay Hagan used to say, “If you’ve got health insurance in our country, you keep it.” Now, Sen. Hagan is trying to convince those who will vote in the North Carolina Senate race she is on the case. “We need to figure out why this happened,” she said in November. Unlike Landrieu in Louisiana, her comments are telling regarding her strategy, which is not to try and galvanize a small base to overtake an anti-ObamaCare sentiment.

It is far from unclear how effective that strategy will be, because once the Republican primary is over, her opponent will hammer her over how “this happened.” The vote for ObamaCare cast by Sen. Kay Hagan against the wishes of her constituencies is how “this happened.”

Still, it isn’t enough to be against someone or something, and candidate selection will have much to do with which side we decide to put our finger on the scale at PPD.

Thom Tillis, the Republican speaker of the state House, was seen as the top contender by the GOP establishment since the beginning of the cycle, and he is able to raise a good deal of money. Speakers of state legislatures, however, are establishment insiders, and Tillis has not yet proven to be a strong statewide candidate. An anti-establishment wave can very well sweep Tillis right out of the room.

Furthermore, no fewer than 4 other Republicans are declared in the North Carolina Senate race, including Bill Flynn, Heather Grant,  Southern Baptist leader the Reverend Mark Harris of Charlotte, and physician Greg Brannon. Amazingly, others are rumored to still be considering a bid, including state Senate leader Phil Berger, Reps. Renee Ellmers and Virginia Foxx, and former Ambassador Jim Cain of Raleigh.

Brannon announced the support of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), which obviously increases his clout among insurgent conservatives in the GOP primary, who will no doubt argue that Tillis is the face of the very controversial state legislature.

Prior to Jan., we only had polling conducted by the Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling to examine, which most readers of PeoplesPunditDaily.com know full-well is not held in the highest regard here. All PPP polling is conducted using a registered voter model that does not take into account a likely midterm electorate. In the simplest of terms: the Obama electorate from 2008 and 2012 is also reflected in PPP, and Hagan will most assuredly not be able to count on that turnout machine.

In Jan., Rasmussen Reports released a survey that shows both Brannon and Tillis pulling away from Hagan, but Rasmussen does not have an extremely accurate track record post-2008, either. Currently, both polling firms are rated a 4 on the PPD accuracy of pollsters assessment, in which 1 represents quality accuracy on the margin and 4 is just the reverse.

Nevertheless, we can still identify clear trends over time, all of which, spell trouble for Sen. Kay Hagan. The ObamaCare rollout has badly damaged her approval, but in a not-so traditional manner. In September, she had a 43 percent approval rating, the same approval measured in December, but her disapproval shot up 10 points since then. Now, nearly half of the North Carolina Senate race electorate — which again, according to PPP is far more favorable than the actual electorate — disapprove of Sen. Kay Hagan.

For instance, when we combine “very liberal” and “somewhat liberal,” liberals account for 28 percent of the electorate in the PPP survey, in a state with a Cook PVI (Partisan Voting Index) of R+3. In 2010, the Cook PVI for North Carolina was R+4, which ended in sweeping gains for the Republican Party. Though there is a slight change, R+3 still falls comfortably within the 83 percent chance of Republican victory identified in the PPD model.

To make matters worse, she will be hard-pressed to find any other piece of legislation — outside of ObamaCare — to attach her name to and talk about, prompting NoodlePundit.com to dub her “Queen Nothing” due to her lack of accomplishments in the U.S. Senate. Of course, a strong candidate on the Republican side will be necessary if that message is to be effectively transmitted to the voters.

Recent PPP polling shows Paul-backed Brannon to be the strongest candidate against Hagan, but the incumbent is polling with no more than 45 percent support. Further, the latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows Tillis pulling farther and farther ahead of Hagan, leading the senator 47 – 40 percent. Brannon is leading Hagan in the Rasmussen survey, as well, but by a smaller margin.

Perhaps, the most encouraging sign for Republicans is that only 39 percent of voters in the Tar Heel State now say they approve of the job Hagan is doing, while to 49 percent say they disapprove.

Nevertheless, as far as the GOP field, it is still far too early to set the primary in stone. However, Thom Tillis appears to be benefiting from his ad campaign, leading the GOP field in the latest PPP survey with 19 percent, to 11 percent for Brannon.

Heather Grant is around 8 percent, as well is Mark Harris, and 7 percent support Bill Flynn. Tillis has gained 6 points from his 13 percent support in December, while Harris has declined by 4 points from the 12 percent in the same month.

No matter who becomes the Republican nominee, they will have to contend with negative sentiment surrounding a Republican governor, who is polling in the 30s on approval, and a controversial state legislature.

It’s very unlikely Republicans can capture a Senate majority if they don’t win here. One noteworthy pundit has moved this race back to “Leans Democrat,” but I have seen no justification for that call since September, and at this moment, the North Carolina Senate race is a “Toss-Up” on the PPD 2014 Senate Map.

View Polling Below Or Return To PPD 2014 Senate Map

Poll Date Sample Tillis (R) Hagan (D) Spread
Rasmussen Reports 1/9 – 1/12 500 LV 47 40 Tillis +7
PPP (D) 1/9 – 1/12 1384 RV 43 42 Tillis +1
PPP (D) 12/5 – 12/8 1281 RV 42 44 Hagan +2
PPP (D) 11/8 – 11/11 701 RV 42 44 Hagan +2
PPP (D) 9/6 – 9/9 600 RV 36 51 Hagan +15
Poll Date Sample Harris (R) Hagan (D) Spread
PPP (D) 1/9 – 1/12 1384 RV 43 41 Harris +2
PPP (D) 12/5 – 12/8 1281 RV 43 43 Tie
PPP (D) 11/8 – 11/11 701 RV 41 43 Hagan +2
PPP (D) 9/6 – 9/9 600 RV 36 50 Hagan +14
Poll Date Sample Brannon (R) Hagan (D) Spread
Rasmussen Reports 1/22 – 1/23 500 LV 43 39 Brannon +4
PPP (D) 1/9 – 1/12 1384 RV 43 41 Brannon +2
PPP (D) 12/5 – 12/8 1281 RV 45 43 Brannon +2
PPP (D) 11/8 – 11/11 701 RV 44 43 Brannon +1
Poll Date Sample Grant (R) Hagan (D) Spread
PPP (D) 1/9 – 1/12 1384 RV 42 41 Grant +1
PPP (D) 12/5 – 12/8 1281 RV 43 43 Tie
PPP (D) 11/8 – 11/11 701 RV 40 43 Hagan +3
PPP (D) 9/6 – 9/9 600 RV 36 48 Hagan +12
Poll Date Sample Flynn (R) Hagan (D) Spread
PPP (D) 1/9 – 1/12 1384 RV 44 42 Flynn +2
PPP (D) 12/5 – 12/8 1281 RV 45 43 Flynn +2

 

The North Carolina Senate race is the

News, Policy

(Photo: AP/Fox News)

Don’t know when the ObamaCare payment deadline for you to ensure you are covered even is anymore? If you have signed up through ObamaCare exchanges, by any method, you aren’t covered if you haven’t paid your first premium.

Despite the Obama administration trying to calm fears, just as the case with any other insurance plan, new ObamaCare enrollees still have to pay their first month’s premium to use the coverage. However, if you are confused when that payment has to be made it isn’t likely to be your fault, because ObamaCare payment deadlines are different all over the country.

In fact, the law has been a dynamic conglomerate of evolving deadlines.

The deadline to sign up for coverage was originally December 15, but it was unilaterally changed by the Obama administration to December 23. As if one more day would have made a tremendous difference in enrollment, they moved it again to December 24.

And when the December 24 deadline came and went last Tuesday night, the Obama administration announced that users who ran into technical problems on HealthCare.gov could still apply for an exemption and get covered by January 1, though it was not made clear how they would determine who did or didn’t experience technical problems.

Next came the ObamaCare payment deadline on December 31, which was altered after the Obama administration “requested” major health insurance providers give people until January 10 to pay their first month’s premium, thus receiving coverage effective January 1. Retroactive coverage never goes over well with insurance companies, but eventually they conceded.

I wish it was that simple however, but it isn’t, because many states with their own exchanges have their own ObamaCare payment deadline. And some states have more than one.

Some of the earliest ObamaCare payment deadline states are California and Rhode Island. The deadlines for both those states are January 6, with Vermont setting a deadline of January 7.

The next round of ObamaCare payment deadlines are set for January 10, which include the following states: Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New York.

In a few other states, however, different insurers have different deadlines, as is the case in Idaho. The insurers Bridgespan and Select Health, both extended their deadline to January 10, but PacificSource extended their deadline to January 15.

The deadlines in Washington, D.C., also depend on the insurer.

The final round of deadlines to make your ObamaCare payment falls on January 15, which include the following states: Maryland, Oregon and Washington state.

After the first set of deadlines has passed, those who still wish to enroll will have until the end of March to get insurance. Then, the federal government will fine those without coverage.

The Obama administration, when it is politically expedient, has decided to unilaterally carve out exemptions and postpone delays for privileged people and businesses. The insurance industry has been boiling with concern regarding the changes, stating that they will cause “tremendous instability” in the market.

The Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, was designed to use millions of young and healthy who aren’t buying, to offset the cost to insurers forced to accept sicker patients.

President Obama said at his end-of-year press conference that 1 million people have signed up through the federal and state exchanges, but according to records obtained by PeoplesPunditDaily.com, enrollments are nowhere even close to projections needed to stabilize premium cost and the entire system.

Administration officials originally projected a goal of 7 million people by the end of March. Based on data as of December 10, out of the 1.2 million people who have signed up (actually is it just under), only 364,682 are private paying plans. But that number includes those who have or have not made their first ObamaCare payment.

The rest, or 803,077 sign-ups, are all from Medicaid, which is lopsided enough to put the entire system in peril.

Don't know when the ObamaCare payment deadline

Opinion

WASHINGTON — Federal Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York says documents called “statements of reasons” are an optional way for a judge to express “views that might be of interest.” The one he issued two months ago is still reverberating.

It expresses his dismay that although his vocation is the administration of justice, his function frequently is the infliction of injustice. The policy of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses has empowered the government to effectively nullify the constitutional right to a trial. As Lulzim Kupa learned.

Born to Albanian immigrants, he was convicted in 1999 and 2007 of distributing marijuana. Released from prison in 2010, he again engaged in trafficking, this time with enough cocaine to earn him charges involving a sentence of 10 years to life. On March 5, 2013, prosecutors offered this: In exchange for a guilty plea, he would effectively be sentenced within the range of 110-137 months — but the offer would expire the next day. Kupa rejected the offer, so on March 15 prosecutors filed a “prior felony information,” aka an 851 notice, citing the two marijuana convictions. So, 10 days after saying a sentence of perhaps less than eight years (assuming good time credits) would be appropriate, prosecutors were threatening a sentence of life without parole. This gave him no incentive to plead guilty.

Then, however, they immediately proposed another plea agreement involving about nine years’ imprisonment. Given a day to decide, he acted too slowly, so prosecutors again increased the recommended sentence. Finally, Kupa caved: “I want to plead guilty, your Honor, before things get worse.” If, after the 851 notice, he had insisted on a trial and been found guilty, he would have died in prison for a nonviolent drug offense. He is 37.

Tyquan Midyett, a high-school dropout from a broken home and foster care, began using marijuana at 14. He was 26 when arrested for selling less than four ounces of crack. Because this was his second offense, the best he could do pleading guilty was a 10-year sentence. When he hesitated, the government gave him a date to agree or it would file an 851 notice, which would double the mandatory minimum to 20 years. He went to trial, was convicted and is serving 240 months for an offense that, without the escalating coercions aimed at a guilty plea, would have received a sentence of 46-57 months.

In 2008, an 851 notice was filed against Charles Doutre, based on two prior convictions for distribution of $50 worth of drugs and simple possession of drugs. The judge who was required to sentence him to life in prison said, “I’ve imposed a life sentence six times, and it was for a murder each time.” Doutre is 32.

Eleven years ago, Dennis Capps, 39, a methamphetamine addict, pled guilty to two instances of trafficking involving a quantity of drugs he could hold in his hand. He conquered his addiction for a long time, then relapsed, and in this year was convicted of another drug offense. Because he insisted on a trial, the government filed an 851 notice. He was convicted, and is serving life without parole.

Kenneth Harvey was 24 in 1989 when he committed a crack cocaine offense. He had two prior offenses that qualified as felony drug convictions even though they were not deemed serious enough for imprisonment. They, however, enabled the government to make an 851 filing. He will die in prison. Harvey is 48.

Thousands of prisoners are serving life without parole for nonviolent crimes. Gleeson, who is neither naive nor sentimental (as a prosecutor, he sent mobster John Gotti to die in a supermax prison), knows that most defendants who plead guilty are guilty. He is, however, dismayed at the use of the threat of mandatory minimums as “sledgehammers” to extort guilty pleas, effectively vitiating the right to a trial. Ninety-seven percent of federal convictions are without trials, sparing the government the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Mere probable cause, and the meager presentation required for a grand jury indictment, suffices. “Judging is removed,” Gleeson says, “prosecutors become sentencers.” And when threats of draconian sentences compel guilty pleas, “some innocent people will plead guilty.”

Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Sens. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., are questioning the regime of mandatory minimum sentences, including recidivism enhancements, that began with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Meanwhile, the human and financial costs of mass incarceration mount.

George Will’s email address is [email protected].

The policy of mandatory minimum sentences for

Opinion

I received a number of questions over the weekend regarding the PPD 2014 Senate Map, which currently predicts a far more favorable 2014 election outcome for Republicans than other maps, particularly Crystal Ball and to a lesser extent, predictions by Rothenberg Political Report, and so on.

Thus far, I have released expanded analysis for the following Senate races:

Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, and North Carolina, with West Virginia — which is rated “Safe Republican” on the 2014 Senate Map — soon to be released as the ninth article.

So, while I have the utmost respect for Larry Sabato and others at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, I would like to expand on my rationale for disagreeing with many of their ratings and offer some insight in to the model used at PeoplesPunditDaily.com.

First and foremost, far too many pundits do not take their role as a predictor of elections seriously, violating the public trust. What political analysts or talking heads say about the status of a race, as well as the findings of pollsters, can have far more sway than I think should be the case. Together, they can impose a sentiment of inevitability or otherwise damaging narratives to one candidate or another, and unfortunately, they know it.

However, that being said, let me provide a few examples of different variables that go in to my election model.

Polling

When the electorate and the media want to know who is leading in an election, we all look to the polls. While polls certainly help to gauge a race, “polls do not vote, people vote.” In order to account for what is often their gruesome inaccuracy, I rate pollsters by accuracy, which I weigh when factoring an average on PeoplesPunditDaily.com.

Most of my liberal friends may just be surprised to find that Rasmussen Reports, for instance, is actually one of the lower rated pollsters. In 2010, though other pollsters and pundits mocked Rasmussen for predicting a sweeping GOP victory, which obviously came to fruition, individual race margins were way off from the actual outcome.

Perhaps it was the exit of Scott Rasmussen or their desire to regain credibility after their 2012 disaster, but post-election 2012 has gotten even worse. They were once far more Republican, but now they have swung to the other side too much, with the Virginia governor race — which had McAuliffe winning by double digits a week before the election — being the last straw for me.

Though I will not get into a back-and-forth or provide a list at this point, I will say that SurveyUSA and Gravis Marketing, on the other hand, are among the top-rated pollsters for their accuracy. Therefore, according to the PPD model, they are more influential in averages and final ratings.

The model of rating pollsters is similar to FiveThirtyEight, but there are significant problems with FiveThirtyEight’s forecasting models. One such problem, in their own words:

These ratings are designed to form an objective assessment of pollster quality with respect to one particular function: their aptitude in accurately forecasting election outcomes, when they release polls into the public domain in the period immediately prior to an election.

Except, as is the case with PPP (Public Policy Polling) and Washington Post polling, for example, FiveThirtyEight does not hold pollsters accountable for their dubious tendency to release surveys aimed at creating or reinforcing a narrative that benefits those they ideologically favor, and often even provide the funding for their surveys. Polling conducted far before or in the weeks leading up to elections too often aim to do just that, rather than accurately predict election outcomes.

The Washington Post, just as Rasmussen, had a ridiculous double-digit lead a few days before the Virginia gubernatorial election, with even more ridiculous margins for Obama in Virginia, Ohio, and so on. Pat Caddell, a Democratic pollster for Jimmy Carter, blasted media-funded public polling during the 2012 presidential election cycle for this, and he was right.

Therefore, their influence on ratings assessed in the months – not weeks – leading up to an election, cannot be as significant as it may be in the weeks leading up to the election, if it turns out that they are even accurate, which many aren’t. Otherwise, the pundit is falling into the very trap the bias pollsters have set for them, and at that point the pundit is just being used to create a false “air of inevitability.”

It is clear, particularly because they don’t offer up much but flawed pollster findings, that the guys at Crystal Ball fall in to this trap, with PPP being the single-most cited pollster at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, from which the Crystal Ball hails.

Bottom line: Polling should corroborate your model, your model shouldn’t rely upon polling. All of this must be weighed, along with state-by-state demographic trends and so on.

Partisan Voting Index (PVI), Demographics, Presidential Approval Rating

Cook PVI, or Partisan Voting Index, carries a good deal of weight in my model at PeoplesPunditDaily.com.

In 2010, for comparison, in states where the Cook PVI was more Republican than D+2, Republican candidates won just under 85 percent of the races. On the flip side, in general, the GOP lost races in states where the electorate was more Democratic than D+2.

This is probably a good time to address some of the more ridiculous ratings at Crystal Ball, and others.

First, Iowa, is trending Republican, with the state disapproving not only of President Obama by larger than average margins (38 – 59 percent), but the entire Democratic agenda. By a 2 to 1 margin, Iowa voters say they want a senator who opposes ObamaCare and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, with a plurality saying they want someone who is opposed to stricter gun control laws.

Worth noting, presidential approval rating is still the most telling variable in midterm elections, historically and empirically speaking.

The PVI has held steady in Iowa at D+1 — well within the threshold that carries a 83 percent chance of Republican victory — but also two polls have found a very real anti-liberal sentiment. Braley, who is fairly well known, is trailing a generic Republican in Quinnipiac (46 – 41) and Harper Polling (42 – 38), with Iowans favoring a Senate controlled by the GOP.

The same is true for Louisiana, where Mary Landrieu is favored in Crystal Ball. That is just a ridiculous call, “period.” Data inside the state demographics tell us that the growing black voter population is not even close to compensating for the state’s Republican trend.

When Landrieu was first elected in 1996, 40 percent of Louisiana’s voters were white Democrats. Today, white Democrats account for only 22 percent of Louisiana’s electorate. Yet, it is even worse than it sounds when we look at ideological leanings.

Voter registration is trending against Democratic candidates, as well, but 48 percent of Louisiana voters say they agree with Republicans despite which party they say they chose when they registered to vote. Only 36 percent say they agree with Democrats.

Also, when we look at the Cook PVI (Partisan Voting Index), we see the state is R+12, well above the D+2 threshold for an 85 percent chance of Democratic loss. No poll, particularly a survey conducted by PPP, should outweigh that reality without real corroboration.

Both Iowa and Louisiana are rated “Leans Democrat” on Crystal Ball, while both are justifiably rated “Toss-Up” on the PPD 2014 Senate Map.

Candidate Recruitment And Organization

I placed Cook PVI just prior to candidate recruitment and organization to underscore just how important candidate recruitment and organization can be. In fact, when we look at recent election cycles with state-by-state PVI in mind, Todd Akin and Richard Murdock represent the tip of the iceberg when it comes to blown elections that Republicans should have won.

It is a long list that includes more than I care to cite, but the point is moot and evident now. But that doesn’t really matter to the model, at least at this point, because until the Republican Party makes a clear mistake during the nomination process we cannot simply give the Democratic incumbent the benefit of the doubt, as they seem to do at Crystal Ball.

Bottom Line

It is true that Republicans unseated just 3 Democratic incumbent senators in the last 10 years, but data is data, and we have never had an election in which ObamaCare was put on trial, save for 2010.

Whether the GOP candidates can effectively make the case against their opponent is yet to be seen, but the pundits cannot assume that the 2014 candidates will behave as the 2012 candidates did, and would do better to focus on the fundamentals of the midterm election. The environment clearly favors the Republican Party, and if you thought 2010 was a defeat for the Democratic Party, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

View the PPD 2014 Senate Map

PPD senior political analyst, RIchard D. Baris,

Economy

(Photo: REUTERS)

U.S. consumer spending measured its largest increase in 5 months in November, but it is unclear whether it suggests sustained strength in the economy or holiday-induced swelling.

The Commerce Department said on Monday consumer spending rose 0.5 percent after advancing by a revised 0.4 percent in October. However, it was the seventh straight month of increases and matched economists’ expectations.

Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, was previously reported to have increased 0.3 percent in October.

A reading on consumer sentiment from Thomson Reuters and the University of Michigan came in at 82.5 in late December, which matched an earlier reading, but fell shy of expectations that a slight increase to 83 would be measured. However, it was the highest reading on a final basis since July, as well.

When adjusted for inflation, consumer spending increased 0.5 percent in November, which followed a rising 0.4 percent in October. November’s increase in “real” consumer spending was the largest since February 2012.

This suggests that consumer spending in the fourth quarter probably accelerated from the third quarter’s 2 percent annual rate.

The report came amid other positive data, including employment and industrial production, which may suggest the economy held on to some of its third-quarter gains leading up to the end of the year, and perhaps is poised for faster growth in 2014.

Despite the signs of strength in the economy, inflation supposedly remains a non-factor. A price index for consumer spending was unchanged for a second consecutive month.

Over the past 12 months consecutive months, consumer prices rose 0.9 percent after gaining 0.7 percent in October.

Excluding food and energy, which accounts for most of Americans’ everyday spending costs, the price index for consumer spending rose 0.1 percent, rising by the same margin for a fifth straight month. However, core prices were up 1.1 percent from a year ago, after rising by the same margin in October.

Both inflation measures continue to fall well below the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target, which would suggest the U.S. central bank could keep interest rates near zero for a while, even as recent reports claimed the Fed will reduce its monthly bond purchases, known as QE3 or quantitative easing.

Income rose 0.2 percent, rebounding from a 0.1 percent dip in October. With spending outpacing income growth, the saving rate – the percentage of disposable income households are socking away – fell to a nine-month low of 4.2 percent.

U.S. consumer spending measured its largest increase

News, Politics

Amid the Duck Dynasty controversy, the failed ObamaCare rollout, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says there is a decent chance he will run for president in 2016.

“I would say maybe at this point, it is 50/50. But I don’t know. I don’t know that I would put a percentage on it,” he told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”

Huckabee was responding to Wallace who pointed out the recent interviews with the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Huckabee added, “And, by the way, the only reason I talked to those news entities is because they asked me. You know, I didn’t go and solicit them and say, hey, I’d love to have an interview with you and lets But as people approached me and they’ve asked me about it, I had friends who said let’s do a poll, let’s just see if you’re in the mix.”

According to several pollsters, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie leads among early likely 2016 presidential nominations, with few polling Gov. Huckabee, who now hosts “Huckabee” on the Fox News Channel. Still, surveys conducted this early are not very good future indicators.

In 2008, both Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton were far ahead of their challengers in the Republican and Democrat presidential nomination polls, which neither went on to receive. In fact, Mike Huckabee blindsided many when he went on to win the first in the nation caucus primary, Iowa.

While the contest is still far ahead in the future, prospective candidates will have to decide sometime this year in order to put ground organization in place and race money. One thing is certain: Pollsters will have to start including Mike Huckabee in the surveys for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

Amid the Duck Dynasty controversy, the failed

News, Politics

Today the ObamaCare deadline for most Americans to have health insurance beginning January 1 hits, but a rash of administration “fixes” and delays is watering down the deadline into a day that for many Americans will underscore the uncertainty about the future of the law.

The ObamaCare deadline also comes as a new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows a new all-time high in disapproval, with 35 percent saying they approve and a new-high — 65 percent — disapproving. The Obama administration is making a final push to get as many people as possible signed up for health care coverage by the end of the ObamaCare deadline, Monday.

Aside from site announcements, the District of Columbia government sent out someone from the DC health exchange, DC Health Link, to one of the city’s gay clubs to sign people up. A range of last-minute pushes will be searching for “consumers’ high on low throughout the day.

The law originally stated that Americans who enrolled in ObamaCare, online or by paper filing, by December 23 and paid their first premium in full would have insurance when coverage kicks in New Year’s Day.

But the disastrous October 1 start for the federal website, as well as some state-run sites — which  as plagued by crashes and the dissemination of incorrect information — sent President Obama and other top administration officials scrambling to change the law in hopes of bolstering enrollment numbers.

In his final press conference of the year, the president expressed confidence that the “fixes” and delays have helped, claiming that December enrollment skyrocketed. However, a new report released by HHS showed the administration is far behind on their projected numbers.

On Sunday, he restated his case that ObamaCare is on the right track but urged those who had yet to enroll to do so by Monday.

“The law is working,” he said in a statement. “If you don’t have health insurance, go to [the site] right now and sign up. If you do it before December 23rd, you can be covered on the first day of the New Year. … I’m asking you to spread the word about getting covered.”

Among the first changes for individual insurance was the president’s proposed legislative fix in mid-November, amid the issuing of millions of insurance cancellation notices. Obama gave insurers the option to extend plans to customers for an extra year, even if the plans failed to meet ObamaCare standards.

“I completely get how upsetting this can be for a lot of Americans,” the president said at the time. “Americans whose plans have been canceled can choose to enroll in the same kind of plan.”

However, the move drew sharp criticism from congressional Republicans and other ObamaCare critics.

“There is no way to fix this,” House Speaker John Boehner said. “I am highly skeptical they can do this administratively.”

Speaker Boehner was echoed by Senator Tom Colburn on “Meet The Press” Sunday. “You can’t fix this mess,” he said.

Still, some Democrats remain realistically optimistic about the future of the law. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” that the law’s performance is what would matter.

“At the end of the day, if it’s so much more expensive than what we anticipated and that the coverage is not as good as what we’ve had, you’ve got a complete meltdown at that time. So this transitional year gives you a chance to adjust the products to the market. And to see if the market will absorb and buy the product,” he said.

Last week, administration officials again asked insurers to accept partial payments or backdate policies for those who enroll after Monday so that Americans will have insurance by January 1.

They also said the estimated 500,000 who had yet to replace cancelled policies could get catastrophic coverage and that around 3.9 million lower-income Americans have qualified for ObamaCare in the Medicaid expansion, supposedly closing the enrollment gap created by the estimated 4 million to 5 million cancellations.

The president said Friday that 1 million Americans through the third week in December had enrolled in ObamaCare. It was an increase compared to just 365,000 Americans who had enrolled through November 30. But the number remains far short of the 3.3 million the administration had hoped for prior to the October rollout.

Still, several underlying problems persist, including the accuracy of the numbers and how many of those enrolled have in fact paid for their policies.

Such problems could create far more serious consequences in the coming weeks should people who think they have insurance under ObamaCare go to a pharmacy or doctor’s office and find out otherwise.

In addition, the complexity of the law, including who is exempt from what, will continue to confuse Americans, Robert Moffit, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy Studies, told FoxNews.com on Friday.

“This whole thing has turned into a rat’s nest of rules and regulations,” he said. “Who would have thought Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would grant so many hardships? … This administration is under the mindset of how America is supposed to work, which has nothing to do with how it really works.”

The White House’s ultimate goal is to provide insurance for an estimate 30 million Americans, which includes subsidizing costs for low-income individuals. But many experts are saying that come the new year, with more than 6 million Americans receiving cancellations, we may come to find that more Americans are uninsured than before the law. The ObamaCare deadline to enroll without facing a tax penalty is March 31.

Capitol Hill Republicans and other ObamaCare critics have tried numerous times to “defund,” repeal and replace the law, with the GOP-led House holding at least 40 votes on the issue.

“Things will get better,” he said last month. “I make no apologies for us taking this on because somebody, sooner or later, had to do it.”

However, Moffit and others think the president might be forced to except changes from Capitol Hill as Democrats seeking re-election in 2014 will need to be able to show voters that the problems can and have been fixed.

Today the ObamaCare deadline for most Americans

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe