Latest news with #Majority
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Sports Betting Is a Plague
When do practical policy effects trump cherished principles? The mess that has come with gambling liberalization should force the thoughtful kind of libertarian to consider that question. Set aside, for the moment, the recent ideological devolution of the Republican Party into national socialism: Traditionally, most of the Americans who called themselves 'libertarians' were in effect conservatives ('Republicans who like weed and porn,' as a Marxist friend of mine used to put it), while American conservatism was thoroughly libertarian, and not only as an economic matter but also in a way deeply rooted in the live-and-let-live sensibility of figures such as Barry Goldwater, with his suspicion of Moral Majority types. ('Mark my word,' Goldwater famously said, 'if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem.') Libertarians and conservatives both prioritize freedom; libertarians and conservatives both admit the unwelcome reality of trade-offs; libertarians tend to lean a little more into freedom, and conservatives tend to dwell more on the unpleasanter facts of life. Here is a sobering write-up of a study published in December by scholars at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management: At the outset, the researchers observed a sharp increase in sports betting in the states where it was legalized. 'The figure goes from zero in most states to sizable amounts, and it continues to increase for several months as people learn about it,' [Kellogg professor Scott] Baker says. 'Only a year or two after it's been introduced do we see a bit of a plateau, and this is at a pretty high level in terms of money spent and people involved.' By the end of their sample period, the researchers saw that nearly 8 percent of households were involved in gambling. These bettors spent, on average, $1,100 per year on online bets. While the amount of money people put into legal sports gambling rose, their net investments fell by nearly 14 percent. For every $1 a household spent on betting, it put $2 fewer into investment accounts. As bad as that sounds, the report in toto is considerably worse. For example, the researchers also found that sports gambling correlated with greater participation in other forms of gambling, especially lotteries, and that this trend is more pronounced 'among households that frequently overdraw their bank accounts,' i.e., poor people and those living on the financial edge. There is an open question of real relevance to policymakers in this: whether sports gambling is a cause of other reckless economic behavior or is a symptom of more general economic recklessness, especially among those already under economic stress. Economic pressure moves some people in the direction of conservation (cutting spending, saving more, etc.) but moves others in the opposite direction as their anxiety and sense of hopelessness work together to make high-risk activities seem more attractive: Gambling is fundamentally a form of entertainment based on wishful thinking about the likelihood of a big payoff—the economic version of George Orwell's man who 'may take to drink because he feels himself a failure but then fail all the more completely because he drinks.' The cause/symptom distinction is relevant, but the answer, whatever it is, is not dispositive: Even if increased gambling is only a secondary effect, it remains the case that, other things being equal, people in financial distress probably would be better off if opportunities to increase their distress were less readily available. A few regular readers will be thinking: 'Wait—this from the guy who supports legalizing heroin?' The thing about the prohibitionist argument is, it isn't always completely wrong. Alcohol consumption really did go down in the early years of Prohibition—it was a bad policy, but it did not fail on every front. And the benefits to be had from libertarian reform often turn out to be more modest in practice than what had been hoped for. For example: The presence of legal prostitution in some parts of Nevada has done little or nothing to alleviate the problems associated with street-level prostitution in Las Vegas and elsewhere and may have made it worse in some ways, with poorly informed visitors to Sin City believing that prostitution is legal there, which it isn't. Experiments with de facto legalization of some 'hard' drugs, and the more general liberalization of marijuana laws, has not eliminated the black market for drugs and thus defunded the cartels, while drug use generally has increased where drugs are legal. And now gambling legalization has led to more gambling and arguably to more destructive and addictive forms of gambling via app. You can make a good libertarian case that some of these intractable problems above point to reforms that were insufficiently libertarian: There is not very much legal prostitution in Nevada, and what there is remains relatively difficult to access and much more expensive than illegal prostitution—a couple of high-priced brothels an hour's drive from the Strip were never going to eliminate prostitution on the street of Las Vegas or in casino bars; black markets in marijuana and other drugs endure because prohibition of marijuana and other drugs endures, and this has effects even on legal production as marijuana cultivated for use in the liberal states is diverted to the black market in the prohibition states. ('What's the matter with Kansas?' indeed.) But if your best argument amounts to, 'The ideal hypothetical version of my policy is preferable to the non-ideal real-world version of your policy,' then you haven't made a very good case for your policy. And clear-eyed libertarian critics might have a few important things to say about legal gambling, too: that lotteries are state monopolies and that the casino industry is a series of regional state-organized cartels, that neither really is an example of free enterprise in action, and that, as with drinking alcohol, only a minority of gamblers develop problem habits. It is difficult to make a cost-benefit analysis here, because the benefits are almost entirely a matter of taste: Walking through an Atlantic City casino, I myself do not see anything that seems worth preserving—but, then, we have free markets, and more general liberty, precisely because different people have different values, interests, and priorities. (Given the advertising footprint of the sports-betting industry, you can bet that bro media would push back hard against any attempt at limitation.) Still, my thoughts linger on that money being diverted from retirement savings to be pissed away on sports gambling. The Kellogg authors offer the possibility that this is only partly a problem with sports gambling per se and that the pathology is made much worse, as so many things are in our time, by its having migrated to the lonely world of the smartphone, where you can make a spur-of-the-moment bet on a sleepless night at 3 a.m., perhaps after a few drinks. They suggest that the situation might be improved by restricting sports gambling to on-premises wagers in gambling parlors. But if you ever have visited any of those ghastly little mini-casinos that have popped up in converted convenience stores and gas stations around the country – or most of the big gambling palaces, for that matter – then you may come to assume that location constraints are unlikely to produce substantial results. Gambling is an ugly business, morally and aesthetically, almost everywhere it exists. Even the world's most famous baccarat enthusiast knows that. But you know what I'm still thinking about: $2 in vanished retirement savings for every $1 gambled. That's not the kind of return a reformer would hope for.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Surging income and business tax receipts to give Conn. its second-largest surplus ever
Surging income and business tax receipts will leave Connecticut with its second-largest surplus in state history, analysts reported Wednesday, even as officials remained divided whether to use any of the $2.3 billion windfall to mitigate big cuts in federal aid. And while the consensus revenue report from Gov. Ned Lamont's administration and the legislature's nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis showed a modest softening of revenues in the future, analysts still anticipate Connecticut will save an average of almost $1.3 billion in each of the next two fiscal years. 'Connecticut's current fiscal year outlook remains positive,' Lamont said Wednesday, before quickly adding, 'there are troubling signs' for the near future. Despite the latest surge, the sales tax — Connecticut's second-largest revenue engine after the income tax — is beginning to sputter. Analysts had expected the sales tax, which will produce $5.1 billion this fiscal year, to generate $127 million more in 2025-26, and $256 million more by 2026-27. Now they say there will be no growth next fiscal year, and only $127 million more two years from now. Similarly, the corporation tax was expected to generate $1.56 billion this fiscal year for the state and then climb to almost $1.6 billion by 2026-27. Now analysts have downgraded expectations for this fiscal year's receipts by $85 million, and that level largely will remain flat for the next two years. 'The economic policies coming out of Washington are directly impacting our state's economic future, as evidenced by leading indicators such as consumer confidence,' the governor added. 'Over the coming weeks, I will be working with legislative leaders to pass an honestly balanced budget that protects Connecticut's core values, provides flexibility for inevitable federal cuts, and adheres to our statutory and constitutional budget obligations." A controversial budget cap that bars legislators from spending a portion of income and business tax receipts will capture $1.9 billion this fiscal year, according to analysts who had been projecting $1.4 billion in savings before the report was issued. That $1.9 billion, combined with the $384 million operating surplus the administration projected this week, would leave Connecticut with an unspent cushion equal to 10% of the General Fund. The projected $2.3 billion combined surplus is topped only by 2021-22, when Connecticut finished $4.3 billion in the black, an outlier driven by the arrival of billions in new federal pandemic aid. Critics of the budget caps say the system is far too aggressive and that much of the reported 'surplus' is revenue badly needed for education, human services, municipal aid and other core programs. And with three-quarters of the General Fund tied to fixed or largely fixed costs, including contractually pledged wages, Medicaid, debt service and payments toward pensions and other retirement benefits, removing 10% from the remaining quarter budget has a big impact. Majority Democrats in the House and Senate have pushed for the past two years to scale back these savings efforts. Lamont, a fiscal moderate, largely has resisted. But he conceded in February that some change should be made and proposed reducing mandatory savings modestly by about $300 million per year starting July 1. But the governor and his fellow Democrats are farther apart on how to use this fiscal year's windfall when it comes to the threat of impending cuts in federal aid. With Congress aiming to reduce Medicaid and other programs by as much as $880 billion over the next decade, Lamont has said some models show Connecticut losing as much as $880 million in annual Medicaid assistance alone. Federal officials also are eyeing cutbacks in assistance for K-12 education, public colleges and universities, and other health care programs that could cost the state and its municipalities hundreds of millions in additional yearly assistance. House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, and Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney, D-New Haven, both appealed to Lamont recently to carve out a portion of this fiscal year's surplus to mitigate likely losses from Washington. The state has a $4.1 billion rainy day fund equal to 18% of the General Fund, but Democratic leaders say much of that could be spent in the next two years if the national slips into a severe recession. 'Four billion dollars,' Ritter said earlier this month, 'could go so quickly that people's heads will explode.' And Looney has noted that, traditionally, Washington responds to an economic downturn by increasing aid to states. If there is a slump and a contraction in federal aid, the double-whammy would be unprecedented. The Democratic-controlled Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee last week approved a measure that would set $700 million of the surplus aside to mitigate cuts in federal aid. Progressive groups also are urging the governor to ease Connecticut's savings efforts to preserve programs here. 'We would join the Governor in celebrating a 10% budget surplus if our schools were fully funded, housing and healthcare were affordable, and our public services were fully staffed,' said Norma Martinez HoSang, director of CT For All, a coalition of more than 60 faith, labor and other civic organizations. 'Instead, we are facing unprecedented federal funding threats while working families continue to pay more for less.' Lamont has been reluctant to commit anything more than the rainy day fund to solve all challenges facing Connecticut's finances. He prefers to use the projected surplus to continue whittling down the state's considerable pension debt, which topped $35 billion entering this fiscal year. Pension burdens, created by inadequate funding between 1939 and 2010, are projected to continue to strain state finances well into the 2040s. 'Our fiscal house has been rebuilt to weather an economic downturn,' said Jeffrey Beckham, the governor's budget director. 'Now is not the time to tear it down.' Lamont also has support from minority Republicans in the House and Senate, who oppose any reduction in savings efforts. 'The [state budget] caps that we have in place have well positioned us for what may or may not happen at the federal level,' said House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, who added that excessive spending ordered by the Democratic state legislators are behind weakening consumer and business confidence in Connecticut. 'These numbers should have the Democrats looking in the mirror,' he added. 'What this report shows is that, without question, the fiscal guardrails that Republicans fought to implement and preserve are working,' Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield and Sen. Ryan Fazio of Greenwich, ranking GOP senator on the finance committee, wrote in a joint statement Wednesday. 'They are saving taxpayers billions and protecting against economic fluctuations. They have helped to control state government spending. They are paying down on the state's debt.' But Ritter and Looney both were hopeful Wednesday a compromise could be reached, at least between majority Democrats and Lamont. The surplus is large enough, Democratic leaders said, to set aside funds to offset federal aid cuts; make a large payment to shrink pension debt; and adopt Lamont's February plan to take $300 million from this year's windfall to expand child care services. 'We're fortunate to be in a position to do that,' Looney said. 'I do think [the rising surplus] makes budget negotiations even easier,' Ritter added. Legislators and Lamont and aiming to adopt a new spending plan for the next two fiscal years before the regular General Assembly session adjourns on June 4. Keith M. Phaneuf is a reporter for The Connecticut Mirror ( Copyright 2025 © The Connecticut Mirror. This article originally appeared on The Bulletin: Officials divided on spending CT surplus to mitigate federal aid cuts
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Meta Oversight Board calls on company to investigate how content moderation changes could impact human rights
Meta's Oversight Board is calling on the company to evaluate how recent changes to its content moderation policies could impact the human rights of some users, including those in the LGBTQ community. The Oversight Board published 11 case decisions overnight Wednesday, marking the first cases to take into account the policy and enforcement changes announced by the Facebook and Instagram parent company at the start of the year. 'Our decisions note concerns that Meta's January 7, 2025, policy and enforcement changes were announced hastily, in a departure from regular procedure, with no public information shared as to what, if any, prior human rights due diligence the company performed,' the board wrote in a release. The board points specifically to Meta's decision to drop some LGBTQ protections from its hate speech rules amid a wider overhaul of content moderation practices. Under the changes, Meta now allows users to accuse LGBTQ individuals of being mentally ill despite otherwise prohibiting such content. 'We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality,' Meta's policy now states. 'As the changes are being rolled out globally, the Board emphasizes it is now essential that Meta identifies and addresses adverse impacts on human rights that may result from them,' the board wrote. This includes investigating the potential negative effects on Global Majority nations, LGBTQ users, minors and immigrants, according to the release. The board recommended Meta update it on its progress every six months and report its findings publicly 'very soon.' The 11 cases reviewed by the board related to freedom of expression issues and the board noted it has a 'high threshold' for restricting speech under an international human rights framework. In two cases related to gender identity debate videos, for example, the board upheld Meta's decision to allow two posts about transgender peoples' access to bathrooms and participation in athletic events in the U.S. 'Despite the intentionally provocative nature of the posts, which misgender identifiable trans people in ways many would find offensive, a majority of the Board found they related to matters of public concern and would not incite likely and imminent violence or discrimination,' the board wrote. The board also recommended Meta improve its enforcement against bullying and harassment policies, including the rules requiring users to self-report content. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg described the changes in January as an effort to 'get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression.' In doing so, he also announced Meta's elimination of its fact-checking program. The system was replaced with a community-based process called Community Notes that relies on users to submit notes or corrections to posts that are potentially misleading or lack context. The fact-checking program officially ended in the U.S. earlier in this month and Meta began testing the Community Notes feature last month. It used X's open-source algorithm for the rating system that determines whether notes get published. The board recommended Meta 'continually assess the effectiveness of Community Notes compared to third-party fact-checking, particularly in situations where the rapid spread of false information creates risks to public safety.' For years, Meta has also used artificial intelligence technology to proactively detect and remove violating content before it is reported. The board said Meta should also assess whether reducing a reliance on automatic technology may have impacts across the globe, especially in countries faced with crisis. The board is run independently from Meta and funded by a grant provided by the company. It can offer non-binding policy recommendations, which if adopted, can have far-reaching impacts for the company's social media platforms. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
23-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Meta Oversight Board calls on company to investigate how content moderation changes could impact human rights
Meta's Oversight Board is calling on the company to evaluate how recent changes to its content moderation policies could impact the human rights of some users, including those in the LGBTQ community. The Oversight Board published 11 case decisions overnight Wednesday, marking the first cases to take into account the policy and enforcement changes announced by the Facebook and Instagram parent company at the start of the year. 'Our decisions note concerns that Meta's January 7, 2025, policy and enforcement changes were announced hastily, in a departure from regular procedure, with no public information shared as to what, if any, prior human rights due diligence the company performed,' the board wrote in a release. The board points specifically to Meta's decision to drop some LGBTQ protections from its hate speech rules amid a wider overhaul of content moderation practices. Under the changes, Meta now allows users to accuse LGBTQ individuals of being mentally ill despite otherwise prohibiting such content. 'We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality,' Meta's policy now states. 'As the changes are being rolled out globally, the Board emphasizes it is now essential that Meta identifies and addresses adverse impacts on human rights that may result from them,' the board wrote. This includes investigating the potential negative effects on Global Majority nations, LGBTQ users, minors and immigrants, according to the release. The board recommended Meta update it on its progress every six months and report its findings publicly 'very soon.' The 11 cases reviewed by the board related to freedom of expression issues and the board noted it has a 'high threshold' for restricting speech under an international human rights framework. In two cases related to gender identity debate videos, for example, the board upheld Meta's decision to allow two posts about transgender peoples' access to bathrooms and participation in athletic events in the U.S. 'Despite the intentionally provocative nature of the posts, which misgender identifiable trans people in ways many would find offensive, a majority of the Board found they related to matters of public concern and would not incite likely and imminent violence or discrimination,' the board wrote. The board also recommended Meta improve its enforcement against bullying and harassment policies, including the rules requiring users to self-report content. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg described the changes in January as an effort to 'get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies and restoring free expression.' In doing so, he also announced Meta's elimination of its fact-checking program. The system was replaced with a community-based process called Community Notes that relies on users to submit notes or corrections to posts that are potentially misleading or lack context. The fact-checking program officially ended in the U.S. earlier in this month and Meta began testing the Community Notes feature last month. It used X's open-source algorithm for the rating system that determines whether notes get published. The board recommended Meta 'continually assess the effectiveness of Community Notes compared to third-party fact-checking, particularly in situations where the rapid spread of false information creates risks to public safety.' For years, Meta has also used artificial intelligence technology to proactively detect and remove violating content before it is reported. The board said Meta should also assess whether reducing a reliance on automatic technology may have impacts across the globe, especially in countries faced with crisis. The board is run independently from Meta and funded by a grant provided by the company. It can offer non-binding policy recommendations, which if adopted, can have far-reaching impacts for the company's social media platforms.
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Medicaid shortfall forces California to borrow $3.44B
SACRAMENTO, California — California will need to borrow $3.44 billion to close a budget gap in the state's Medicaid program, Newsom administration officials told lawmakers Wednesday in a letter obtained by POLITICO. The budget pressure will bring fresh scrutiny to the state's coverage of undocumented immigrants, which is costing more than first budgeted. Originally, the state estimated it would cost around $3 billion per year to insure that population. But one year after the program has been fully implemented, it's turning out to be more expensive than anticipated. Gov. Gavin Newsom's current budget proposal estimates the state will shell out $8.4 billion to cover undocumented immigrants in Medi-Cal in 2024-2025, and $7.4 billion in 2025-2026. The budget pressure could force hard choices, like capping enrollment or limiting benefits. In a joint statement, Senate Leader Mike McGuire, Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez and Budget Chair Scott Wiener said they would be working with the Assembly and with Newsom's office on "responsible and long-term solutions." "Here in the Golden State, we remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring millions of Californians have the healthcare coverage they need to thrive," the statement said. "That access to healthcare is being threatened by skyrocketing healthcare costs across the nation, and even more by the dangerous cuts threatened by President Trump and Congressional Republicans that will impact the lives of tens of millions across this country.' California has been covering undocumented children on Medi-Cal since 2016. Under Newsom, the program has slowly expanded, to young adults in 2020, older adults in 2022 and then all ages in 2024. The program has never been a favorite in conservative circles, and now Congress is eyeing potentially dramatic cuts to Medicaid. State Republicans like Assemblymember Carl DeMaio and Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones have been hammering the $8.4 billion price tag for being far higher than the original estimate, critiques that made it all the way to Elon Musk's posts on X. In a post on X, Jones demanded a full hearing. "Typical of the secretive Newsom Administration, they just quietly dropped a damning notification that they are taking a $3.44 BILLION loan to fund free healthcare for illegal immigrants," he wrote. "The loan is being taken from tax dollars meant for healthcare providers." A variety of factors have pushed up Medi-Cal costs over the past few years. The state anticipates spending around $42 billion on the program in 2025-26, a $4.5 billion increase over the last budget. Pharmacy costs have been rising across the board, and they're starting to weigh down the Medi-Cal budget for citizens and immigrants alike. In January, Newsom's budget included an extra $1.3 billion in state funds for pharmacy costs in 2024-25 and an extra $1.2 billion for 2025-26 to account for the extra Medi-Cal pharmacy expenses. High-cost drugs like those for obesity and diabetes have especially hit the budget. There are also more seniors in the program than there were previously. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, there are 225,000 more seniors in Medi-Cal than there were before the pandemic, a roughly 40 percent increase. Some of that is because of eligibility expansions — like for undocumented seniors — and some is because fewer people were kicked off Medi-Cal during the pandemic. Seniors make up a small percentage of the program, about 10 percent, but come with some of the highest costs. The LAO estimates seniors each cost the Medi-Cal around $15,000 per year, on average, where the rest of the population costs around $8,000. Eric He contributed to this report.
