BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

Alaska elected a Democrat over Palin. Trump 0-2 in special elections.

Want to fix the federal student loan system? Kick out scammy schools.

Even with poor track records, schools can receive more than 90 percent of their revenue from the federal government through student-linked grants, loans and other payments. Worse, they can get sued many times over for defrauding students and continue receiving public funds. Some of the institutions named in a recent major court settlement involving whether schools misled students are still eligible for federally subsidized financing, as University of Virginia economics and education professor Sarah Turner pointed out to me.

Absent the ability to get government-guaranteed loans, these schools might go out of business. And they probably should! They seem to spend more resources aggressively signing up students than providing them with a valuable education.

For most people, student debt is an investment that pays off in the form of higher wages. For some people it doesn't! They got scammed, never finished degree, etc. And I agree: help them. But there are ways to help them without spending on people who'll be rich anyway.

You can reasonably argue that just because the debt is concentrated within top lifetime wealth group doesn't necessarily mean this new spending is. That might well be true! Unfortunately -- conveniently -- the administration never tried to figure out if it *is* true.

And they're the ones with the data to do this. They've refused to release it. Similar calculations were done in past by Obama admin, to evaluate distributional effects of other changes to student financing system. This admin hasn't, and won't. That should tell you something.

Let's do it

Burgess Everett at Politico said:

If all Dems in favor...

But, but ... Mr. Graham is a high ranking government official.

No. I can't think of a legitimate reason why they should have been -- could be taken out of government, away from the government if they are classified.

I, frankly, am skeptical of the claim that [Trump] declassified everything. Because frankly, I think it's highly improbable, and second, if in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them and said 'I hereby declassify everything in here,' that would be such an abuse and that shows such recklessness, it's almost worse than taking the documents.

Let me just say, I think the driver on this from the beginning was loads of classified information sitting in Mar-a-Lago. People say this [raid] was unprecedented -- well, it's also unprecedented for a president to take all this classified information and put them in a country club, okay.

.. What people are missing is that all the other documents taken, even if they claim to be executive privilege, either belong to the government because they are government records -- even if they are classified, even if they are subject to executive privilege -- they still belong to the government and go to the Archives.

https://www.nytimes....l-mobility.html

It is certainly not a new idea that education can change a child’s life trajectory. Almost everyone has some formative school memory — a teacher with whom everything made sense, an art project that opened new doors or a sports championship that bonded teammates for life.

But what is new is the torrent of research studies using “big data” to show the power of education for shaping children’s trajectories, especially over the long term. In one study, for example, my co-authors and I found that students who were randomly assigned to higher-quality classrooms earned substantially more 20 years later, about $320,000 over their lifetimes. And it’s not only the early grades that matter; research suggests the quality of education in later grades may be even more important for long-term outcomes, as children’s brains don’t lock in key neural pathways for advanced reasoning skills until well into their teenage years.

Education changes lives in ways that go far beyond economic gains. The data show clearly that children who get better schooling are healthier and happier adults, more civically engaged and less likely to commit crimes. Schools not only teach students academic skills but also noncognitive skills, like grit and teamwork, which are increasingly important for generating social mobility. Even the friendships that students form at school can be life-altering forces for social mobility, because children who grow up in more socially connected communities are much more likely to rise up out of poverty.

Conversely, limited social mobility hurts not just these children but all of society. We are leaving a vast amount of untapped talent on the table by investing unequally in our children, and it’s at all of our expense.

All this talk of the appointment of a special master is a "red herring." Former president Donald Trump’s legal team and supporters are calling for someone else "neutral and detached" to have a look-see at the seized documents to ensure that none of the former president’s rights have been violated – like the attorney-client privilege, executive privilege or the doctor-patient privilege for that matter. What’s the difference, other than time? Let a third party look at the seized documents first. If any of the documents say "Top Secret;" if any of the documents are half-eaten by the dog; if any of the documents are marked "I sure hope nobody knows I have this" – then it won’t matter if Melania were appointed special master. The documents are what they are. What will be, will be.

The bottom line is, there was not a "Trump raid on Mar-a-Lago." A search warrant was executed on a residence which just happened to be that of a former president of the United States. Nowhere in the law is there a carve-out permitting a former president of the United States to avoid his residence being the subject of a search warrant. And the truth is, a search warrant, by its very nature, is a check on the power of the government to violate our rights as United States citizens to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into our personal space.

Don’t take my word for it. A search warrant finds its roots in our Constitution. The Fourth Amendment exists to protect us from unlawful government searches and seizures. In fact, it is presumed that any search and seizure by the government without a warrant is unlawful. The Fourth Amendment reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That is why a judge, or a magistrate must first sign the search warrant. And before that judge or magistrate signs the search warrant, that judge or magistrate – who is "neutral and detached," must be satisfied that law enforcement has provided first-hand proof that it is more likely than not that evidence of illegality will be found in the place to be searched – what we call "probable cause."

That’s right – the search warrant actually protected the former president of the United States by ensuring that a neutral and detached judge first determined that it was more likely than not that evidence of illegality would be found at Mar-a-Lago before law enforcement could search the premises.

Which now brings us to question of "sealing" or "unsealing" the affidavit of law enforcement in support of the search warrant application. Typically, these affidavits are kept secret, and for obvious reasons. Laws cannot effectively be enforced if the government cannot put its cases together in secrecy. Witnesses would not come forward or could be tampered with; evidence could be secreted or destroyed. With the burden of proof always remaining with the government and the burden of proof being that of "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is a doubt so great that a jury believing that the defendant "probably did it" must lead to an acquittal – the government is given wide berth to conduct its investigation with the curtain closed.

However, the search warrant executed on the former president’s home brings new attention to the tension between and among the public’s right to transparency when it comes to our system of justice, against the government’s right to conduct its investigations without interference or obstruction – and against a putative defendant’s right to a defense. Sure, the public’s confidence in our system of justice is fostered through being able to see directly into the system. But we expect, if not demand, that the government protect us through the enforcement of our laws. The government cannot prosecute cases, take criminals off the streets, and deter future criminal offense conduct if the government cannot effectively investigate its cases. The government often prevails in this tug-of-war. Which means we, as law-abiding citizens, are the real benefactors as we are kept safe.

Because it is a former president of the United States whose home was searched, perhaps it is in the public’s interest to know more than usual. Because it is a former president of the United States whose home was searched, perhaps it is in the public’s interest for the curtain to be pulled back a bit. And perhaps it is this former president of the United States in particular – with his unique skills in polarization – who warrants (pun intended) the government being transparent in ways that this former president has heretofore successfully himself obscured.

But make no mistake – the search was warranted; all this talk of a special master is a distraction and the documents found at the former president’s residence are what they are. What will be will be.

Yet as Republican chances to retake the Senate have slipped, a full-blown case of finger-pointing has erupted across Washington, with Mr. Scott a prime target. His handling of the committee’s finances has become conflated with other critiques, especially a flawed field of Republicans who have found themselves outspent on television.

.. We created this poll error table for a reason: Early in the 2020 cycle, we noticed that Joe Biden seemed to be outperforming Mrs. Clinton in the same places where the polls overestimated her four years earlier. That pattern didn’t necessarily mean the polls would be wrong — it could have just reflected Mr. Biden’s promised strength among white working-class voters, for instance — but it was a warning sign.

That warning sign is flashing again: Democratic Senate candidates are outrunning expectations in the same places where the polls overestimated Mr. Biden in 2020 and Mrs. Clinton in 2016.

Wisconsin is a good example. On paper, the Republican senator Ron Johnson ought to be favored to win re-election. The FiveThirtyEight fundamentals index, for instance, makes him a two-point favorite. Instead, the polls have exceeded the wildest expectations of Democrats. The state’s gold-standard Marquette Law School survey even showed the Democrat Mandela Barnes leading Mr. Johnson by seven percentage points.

But in this case, good for Wisconsin Democrats might be too good to be true. The state was ground zero for survey error in 2020, when pre-election polls proved to be too good to be true for Mr. Biden. In the end, the polls overestimated Mr. Biden by about eight percentage points. Eerily enough, Mr. Barnes is faring better than expected by a similar margin.

The Wisconsin data is just one example of a broader pattern across the battlegrounds: The more the polls overestimated Mr. Biden last time, the better Democrats seem to be doing relative to expectations. And conversely, Democrats are posting less impressive numbers in some of the states where the polls were fairly accurate two years ago, like Georgia.

What I'm wonderin' is, "How is all this bullshit helping the average American?"

It helps in the same way as locking up any criminal helps the average American. That is simply the job of the DOJ. In Trump's case there is also the additional factor of protecting American intelligence interests, which potentially could mean the difference between foiling another 9/11 attack or having it succeed.

OK, got it. Keep Trump out of the White House (and I'm not opposed to that) and we'll all live happily ever after. Thanks.