AirTalk dives into the latest news on the Hill, including Sen. John McCain's comeback to cast his vote for repealing the Affordable Care Act, plus the GOP's move to eliminate a division of the Congressional Budget Office. We also debate the practice of civil asset forfeiture; parse through a stunning report of NFL players' brains showing chronic traumatic encephalopathy; money can buy happiness?; and more.
After a dramatic vote, what’s next in the Senate health care debate?
It’s been a whirlwind 24 hours on the Senate floor, with GOP leaders passing their first milestone to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
As reported by POLITICO, Republicans will now start to cut down Obamacare through a grueling process involving debates, amendments and a vote-a-rama.
The result will likely be a “skinny” bill, and it’s anyone’s guess whether that will have enough votes to pass through the Senate. Republicans may move forward with a “skinny” plan, if only to keep momentum with the repeal, and allow a negotiation with the House.
After years of trying to squash the ACA, the GOP is now hoping to break what some call a standstill in policy changes under a Trump Administration. Even Sen. John McCain (R-A.Z.), who made a dramatic comeback during the health care vote Tuesday after a brain cancer diagnosis, urged more bipartisanship to get things going on the Hill again.
So what does this mean for the future of health care?
Guests:
Kevin Whitelaw, Congress editor at Bloomberg; he tweets
Paul Demko, health care reporter for POLITICO; he’s been following the story; he tweets at
GOP vs. CBO with a move to eliminate the budget analysis division
GOP leaders are looking to dissolve a division of the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan agency most recently in the spotlight for its review of the Republican health care plan.
An amendment was filed Monday by members of the the House Freedom Caucus to eliminate the C.B.O.’s Budget Analysis Division. As reported by the Washington Post, the plan would cut 89 jobs and $15 million from the C.B.O. budget.
Instead, another amendment from Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) would order the agency to instead evaluate laws by taking data collected by the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. The agency’s score of the Senate health care plan earlier this month was believed in part to have thwarted the bill, but C.B.O. scores have worked against left-leaning agendas as well. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan in the 1990s failed in part due to the office.
So what would a gutting of the Budget Analysis Division mean for future bills? Libby Denkmann speaks to a former acting director of the C.B.O. to find out more.
Guests:
Donald Marron, fellow and director, Economy Policy Initiatives at The Urban Institute; he was acting director of the Congressional Budget Office in 2006
Norbert Michel, director of the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank
Civil asset forfeiture: Should 'dirty money' be confiscated without a conviction?
On Wednesday, the Justice Department gave state and local law enforcement the power to bypass potentially restrictive state laws and invoke federal law to seize the personal property of people suspected, but not charged, of crimes.
Proponents of this practice, called civil asset forfeiture, say it’s about confiscating profits or tools of illicit activity, often “dirty money.” If citizens can prove that it’s legally obtained, their assets will be returned. Otherwise, they can be used by law enforcement for equipment or training.
But opponents say the practice is rife for abuse by the police and that innocent people will lose their right to due process.
The D.O.J. did add certain protections, such as making authorities give their reasoning to explain the probable cause for taking assets and requiring federal prosecutors to approve select seizures, such as cash that amounts to less than $10,000.
Last year, California clamped down on civil forfeiture, but this new DOJ policy would allow law enforcement to circumvent the state’s restrictions.
Will this policy aid law enforcement? Or will it open the doors to civil rights abuses?
Guests:
Jerretta Sandoz, vice president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League
Theshia Naidoo, legal director of criminal justice at the Drug Policy Alliance; the organization co-sponsored a 2016 bill which requires conviction in most cases before permanent loss of property; the bill passed and was put into effect in January 2017
Making sense of President Trump’s tweets banning transgender people from serving in U.S. military
In a series of tweets Wednesday morning, President Donald Trump said this morning that the U.S. government “will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” adding that the armed forces can’t be burdened with the costs and disruption it would entail.
After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017
....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming.....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming.....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017
....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017
It remains unclear what the immediate impact will be or how the Commander in Chief plans to put the ban in place. Researchers at RAND Corporation said in a study last year that there are anywhere from 1,320 to 6,630 transgender service members, a relatively small portion of the approximately 1.3 million active duty members. The same study said that trans people serving openly would only minimally impact the military budget, estimating health care costs would increase by 0.04-0.13 percent as a result.
The Pentagon is referring all questions back to the White House, but did say Wednesday that it would defer enlistments of transgender recruits. The Pentagon is currently working on a study of the impact of transgender people in the military, but not through the scope of preventing them from serving.
The ban comes almost a year after the Pentagon officially lifted its ban on transgender people serving in the military, though Secretary of Defense James Mattis said in June of this year that the Department of Defense would delay its decision on whether to let transgender recruits join up.
What do we know about what this means for trans people already openly serving? How will the president implement this ban?
For more on this story from NPR, click here.
Guests:
Tara Copp, Pentagon reporter for Military Times and author of 'The Warbird' (Squadron Books, 2017)
Radha Iyengar, senior economist at the RAND Corporation think tank; she is one of the lead researchers on the 2016 study “Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly”
Alex Wagner, a fellow at the Truman National Security Project, a national security think tank, and adjunct professor at Georgetown Law; former Chief of Staff to Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning; in a previous posting in the Pentagon’s policy shop, he worked on issues at the intersection between law, policy, tech, and human rights
CTE found in 110 out 111 NFL players’ brains – what does that mean for future of football?
According to an investigation published Tuesday, 110 out of 111 former N.F.L. players’ brains had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (C.T.E.), a deteriorating disease allegedly caused by hits to the head and entailing symptoms such as memory problems, depression and dementia.
The study encompassed the brains of players who died at various ages, and played various positions, from quarterbacks and linebackers to punters.
C.T.E. can only be determined after death, and the study acknowledges that the brain bank selection pool was probably skewed, since family members chose to donate brains because they suspected C.T.E. However, 110 out of 111 brains is a significant number which throws a shadow on the already concussion-troubled sport of football.
Do these findings deter you from playing football? Would you want your kids playing football? Do you think this will lead to changes in the sport, or even a national shift away from the N.F.L.?
Guest:
Dan Daneshvar, a co-first author on the paper “Clinicopathological Evaluation of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in Players of American Football;” he is a researcher at the Boston University CTE center
New study explains how happiness can be bought
It’s often been said that money can’t (or won’t) buy happiness.
The road to adulthood is littered with cautionary tales with this idea as the moral. King Midas’ touch turned things to gold, but he soon realized the fatal flaw in his plan after touching his daughter and turning her to a gold statue. One of author F. Scott Fitzgerald’s iconic characters, eccentric millionaire Jay Gatsby, throws lavish parties every weekend and has all the world’s modern comforts but can’t buy the one thing that truly makes him happy: love.
But the findings of a new study suggests that you might actually be able to buy yourself happiness – if you spend your money right.
The study, co-authored by American and Dutch researchers, suggests that people who buy time for themselves are happier than those who don’t. Think paying someone to go grocery shopping, walk your dog or do your laundry.
The study surveyed 6,000 respondents from four countries and also conducted an experiment in which participants were given $40 one week to buy something material, and then $40 the following week. People said they were happier when they had more time versus when they purchased a material thing.
With the prevalence of the gig economy and apps that allow you to pay other people to do your grocery shopping or walk your dog, it would seem it’s easier than ever to buy yourself extra time, and therefore happiness. That is, assuming you can afford to do it.
What do you think about the findings of this study? Does it correlate to your own life experiences? What kinds of tasks did you once do yourself that you now pay someone else to do? Do you find yourself happier as a result?
Guests:
Elizabeth Dunn, Ph.D., professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and co-author of the study