Representative Chuck Rangel convicted of 11 of 13 ethics charges. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reverses his position on earmarks. The Paycheck Fairness Act - when it comes to equal pay, sexism is dead – or is it? Taxing medical marijuana. Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception.
Capitol Hill update: Rangel found guilty, McConnell joins earmark ban
Congress is back in session this week and D.C. is already buzzing with activity. This morning, a House ethics panel found Democratic Representative Charles Rangel of New York guilty on 11 counts of ethics violations. The 20-term, 80-year-old congressman from Harlem walked out of a hearing on Monday after pleading for more time to find a lawyer. And yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reversed direction and endorsed a moratorium on earmarks. Pundits say it’s a bow to the Tea Party and the populist, anti-spending wave that gave the GOP control of the House and six more seats in the Senate. What’s next for the House ethics panel? Will a moratorium on earmarks fly?
Guest:
Kitty Felde, Washington D.C. Reporter, KPCC
When it comes to equal pay, sexism is dead – or is it?
The Paycheck Fairness Act, already passed by the House, is headed to the Senate for a vote tomorrow. President Obama calls it a “common-sense bill” that would make it easier for women to file class-action suits against employers accused of sex-based pay discrimination and require companies to be more cognizant of pay practices. The ACLU says it’s a much needed update to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and is urging Senators to pass it. Critics argue that we don’t need new legislation because existing laws already protect women and that there is no epidemic of gender discrimination anyway. The bill’s sponsors contend that women only earn 77% as much as men, according to the Bureau of labor Statistics. Why do women still earn less than men? And what’s the best way close the wage gap?
Guests:
Lisa Maatz, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations, American Association of University Women and advocate for the Paycheck Fairness Act
June O’Neil, Professor of Economics at Baruch college; adjunct scholar at American Enterprise Institute; member of the National Bureau of Economic Research; former director of the Congressional Budget Office from 1995-1999
Medicine isn’t taxed, should medical marijuana be?
Prop 19 failed at the polls, but the debate over marijuana and how it can be taxed is far from over. Today, the Los Angeles City Council is considering a measure that would tax medical marijuana, claiming that the “medical” designation has been stretched in California and recreational users should not be allowed to take advantage of that loophole. With money tight, lawmakers are looking to make a buck anywhere they can. But critics of the new measure denounce taxation arguing that other medications enjoy tax-free status. Should cash-strapped cities be able to tax medical marijuana? Or should the medicinal weed be tax-free?
Guest:
Joe Elford, Chief Counsel, Americans for Safe Access
Statistics are facts, right?
In a world filled with opinions, many of us are starved for facts. And statistics seem like a pretty reliable place to turn for sustenance. Take these for example: “diet and brain-teasers will make you 40% smarter;” “blonds will be extinct by the year 2202;” “new moisturizer delivers 70% more moisture in every drop.” These are hard numbers, so they must be true, right? Not really, says Charles Seife, author of Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception. According to Seife, bogus statistics abound and belief in these so-called “facts” can have serious repercussions in politics, finance, sports and beyond. So why do we trust numbers, no matter how ridiculous, over other arguments? Are there any trustworthy statistics out there? What’s the best way to separate fact from fiction?
Guest:
Charles Seife, author of Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception; associate professor of journalism at NYU's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute