This week Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute and Joan Entmacher and Kate Gallagher Robbins of the National Women’s Law Center joined Nation blogger Bryce Covert for a live chat with readers. You can read the entire chat in the comments section of her post “The Fast Pace of Change for Women Workers Can’t Distract From the Work Left to Do.” We included some highlights from the conversation along with the rest of our comments of the week.
As usual, let us know what you think—in the comments!
Dawn: Republicans don’t seem to understand that public workers use the goods and services of the private sector. You get an area that has a lot of public workers that live there and a lot of them loose their jobs, local businesses that are private are going to suffer. There is no magic private sector unicorn that comes around and gives ex-government workers that have been laid off in droves, jobs. Sure mass government layoffs means smaller government but it also means that you are taking a lot of money out of the economy for who knows how long.
In response to Mike Konczel and Bryce Covert’s “Red States See Massive Public Sector Job Losses.” March 27, 2012
sonofkenny: Were I convinced this was possible I would be all for striking the current law. I wasn’t a fan of it when it passed. However, given our outmoded form of government, institutions under the hammerlock control of an ideologically driven oligarchy, and with the aid of a complicit media more interested in profit than challenging the powerful, I would argue if this law is struck down we wouldn’t see a serious move to expansion of health care for 50 years, short of some major triggering disaster. More likely we will see the rolling back of the social safety net, social security, environmental regulations etc by an increasingly activist judiciary more intent imposing an outmoded view of the constitution than on later precedent.
In response to George Zornick’s “If the Mandate Fails, Single Payer Awaits.” March 27, 2012
Keith Tyler: "Re-instituting the individual mandate would be unconstitutional"
Not necessarily! The SCOTUS is being very specific in its questioning of the mechanism of the mandate. Saying the mechanism is unconstitutional does not preclude other mechanisms.
Take the minimum age of 21 for alcohol. No state is forced to abide by this limit. But if they don’t, they receive significantly less federal money for highway funds. (See National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984.) So, every state does it, because no one wants to give up the funds. Is this coercion? In fact, no: it’s incentive. No state is forced to do it. Yet they all do. Even the reddest, Tea Party-est, states’ rights, personal responsibility, gub’mint-hatin’ states.