Mediaboss Marketing

58% of polled republicans say colleges have a negative effect on the United States. Aidan Kelly has more. Buzz60

A majority of polled Republicans say America's universities have a negative effect on the country, a trend driven by people without a college degree and indicative of thedivide between the right and left.

A Pew Research Center poll showed nearly 60% of Republican and conservative-leaning independents view colleges as having a negative influence on America. Meanwhile, about three-quarters of Democrats and liberal independentssay America's institutions of higher learning have a positive impact.

Experts say the disparity is guided bymedia portrayals of universitiesas well as the protestsagainst conservative speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter.

It's not a surprise Republicansare weary ofuniversities more than Democrats,explainsUniversity ofDelaware professor of communication DannaYoung.The real revelation is the dramaticshiftRepublicans' negativity has taken over the lasttwo years. InSeptember 2015, during theinfancy of thepresidential election, more thanhalf ofRepublicans (54%) saidour universitieslend a positiveeffect.

"Suddenly the vast majoritysee them as a negative," Young said, "whichis reallyshockingwhen you think aboutwhatuniversities are forand whatthey do."

Blamefor the divide,Young said, lies on both sides of the political spectrum. Most college faculty, she conceded, are liberal, whichcan create an echo chamber of ideas. Although, she charged the "machinery" of the GOP, including conservative media, with amplifying perceived liberal tendencies in academia.

It's an effort, she said, to erode faith in liberal institutions as well as their research, which produces studies about climate change and other topics that can support a liberal agenda.

Indeed, bothparties' views on the media differ greatly. The numberof Democrats who view the media favorably (44%) roughly matches the number who view it negatively (46%). Last year, just a third of Democrats viewed the media positively. Today, about 85% of Republicans say the media has a negative effect on the country. Two years ago, that number was 76%.

Matthew Woessner, a Republican associate professor at Penn State University Harrisburg, said because of politicized media, Republicans and Democrats are "living in different worlds." He blames both sides, especially when it comes to protest coverage.

Woessner said Democrats are "largely satisfied with higher education" because it promotes their values and ideas, which, in their opinion, contributeto a better country. Republicans are more skeptical, he said, especially those with less education.

The study shows Republicans without a college degree who believe universities are benefitting America dipped 20 percentage points in the last two years. It dipped 11 percentage points among those with a degree.

Woessner said the statistic is evidence that "those who've actually been to college are able to better contextualize these sensationalistic stories."

Aside from media coverage, colleges are suffering from a lack of diverse political opinion, said April Kelly-Woessner, a political science professor at Elizabethtown College. Kelly-Woessner and Woessner, wife and husband, together wrote The Still Divided Academy, which explores the politics of higher education.

She said students today are the first generation in 60 years to be less politically tolerant than their parents. Typically, it was administrators who attempt to stifle free speech, now it's the students.

The study also showed how Republicans and Democrats view other American institutions. Republicans, more than Democrats, have a favorable view of churches and religious organization as well as banks and financial institutions. Democrats over Republicans saylabor unions play a positive role in America.

Follow Sean Rossman on Twitter: @SeanRossman

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2ufl0dE

Link:
Majority of Republicans say colleges have negative impact on country, poll says - USA TODAY

For years Republicans have grumbled about the Federal Reserve vastly expanding its influence on the U.S. economy. Now theyll press Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen on when the central bank plans to sound the retreat.

For years Republicans have grumbled about the Federal Reserve vastly expanding its influence on the U.S. economy. Now theyll press Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen on when the central bank plans to sound the retreat.

Yellen will testify Wednesday before the House of Representatives and then give a repeat performance in the Senate a day later as part of the banks twice-a-year update on the economy.

Republicans in control of the House are expected to try to pin her down on when the Fed will start to wind down its massive $4.5 trillion balance sheet. So far the Fed has only said that the process will begin this year.

Read: Donald Trump Jr. releases emails saying Russian government had incriminating Clinton information.

Many conservatives believe the Fed overstepped its bounds. Starting in 2008 the Fed bought trillions of dollars in government Treasurys and bonds tied to home mortgages in a bid to drive interest rates lower and help the economy recover from the Great Recession. Before the crisis, the Fed had less than $900 billion on its balance sheet.

How the Fed goes about reducing its bond holdings will be another big deal. Jamie Dimon, the influential chief executive and chairman of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. JPM, -0.39% , said on Tuesday hes worried about the potential fallout for the U.S. economy.

It could be a little more disruptive than people think, Dimon said at a conference in Paris. We act like we know exactly how its going to happen and we dont.

Also read: Trump Jr. emails show how Russias government communicated to presidents campaign.

To reign in the Fed, Republicans have backed regular audits and some even want to force the central bank to follow a more transparent formula a rulebook of sorts for when to raise and lower interest rates.

Yellen and other senior Fed officials have balked at the idea of adopting a formula. The banks already released report to Congress ahead of her testimony explicitly lays out reasons why it is a bad idea. Yellen is likely to press home the point, saying it would limit the Feds flexibility to respond to economic crises.

Democrats, for their part, have generally been pleased with the performance of the Fed. Yet some liberal lawmakers are likely to push Yellen to keep interest rates lower for longer to help low-income and other Americans at the margins of society.

The central bank has raised a key short-term rate twice this year and at least one more increase is on tap for 2017. The Feds benchmark rate now is now set between 1% and 1.25%.

Although the cost of borrowing is still quite cheap, most Democrats see no reason to raise rates unless inflation starts to accelerate. Instead, the rate of inflation has actually slowed since the spring.

Some Fed officials appear to agree with a less aggressive posture.

Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard on Tuesday suggested the central bank may not have to raise rates again anytime soon, especially if the Fed winds down its balance sheet. The withdrawal process could raise interest rates on its own.

She also pointed to softening price pressures. I will want to monitor inflation developments carefully, she said.

Yellen has argued the slowdown in inflation is temporary, the result of unusual factors that will fade soon. If shes right, dont look for a big change in the Feds interest-rate approach.

The Feds wind-down of its balance sheet could be the last big shift in strategy under Yellen, whos led the central bank since 2014. Her term as chairwoman ends early next year and its likely President Trump will choose another successor.

Excerpt from:
Republicans to press Yellen on Fed plans to reduce its outsized role on US economy - MarketWatch

WASHINGTON Republicans lawmakers on Tuesday started trying to kill a brand-new U.S. rule prohibiting banks and credit card companies from requiring customers who open new accounts to sign an agreement that they will not join a group lawsuit in the event of a dispute.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Monday finalized the new rule banning "mandatory arbitration clauses" requiring consumers to forego class-action suits and instead settle disputes in negotiations overseen by arbitrators frequently hired by companies.

The rule immediately ran into fierce opposition by Wall Street and Republicans who control both Congress and the White House. They have long criticized the consumer agency, which is run by a Democrat, Richard Cordray.

Senator Tom Cotton, a member of the Banking Committee, has already announced he is drafting a resolution to kill the rule. His fellow Republican Senator Pat Toomey, chair of the subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer protection, said he is considering a similar step.

Republican lawmakers plan to eliminate the rule, using a law that allows Congress to undo new regulations with simple majority votes in both chambers and a signature from the president.

Analysts and consumer advocates have said the agency's rule may survive the Congressional challenge. Still, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is contemplating a legal challenge and Trump administration officials are also looking at ways to kill the rule.

Isaac Boltansky, a policy analyst for the investment firm Compass Point Research & Trading, said the rule has a slightly better than 50 percent chance of surviving in Congress.

Joe Valenti, who tracks the issue for the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, said the House of Representatives was unified against the rule, which opponents have argued benefits class-action lawyers, not consumers.

"It comes down to the Senate," said Valenti, noting that the rule would survive if only three Republicans in that chamber switched sides.

That is possible, said Ed Mierzwinksi, the consumer program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups. He noted that Senate Republicans have struggled to gather enough votes for majorities and the calendar is swollen with pressing legislation and confirmation hearings.

In addition, Mierzwinksi said, senators may be leery of appearing to side with Wall Street against consumers. He noted that Wells Fargo & Co used clauses in its account-opening agreements to block customers from suing over its phantom account scandal.

Supporters of the rule say mandatory arbitration denies citizens their day in court and is rigged in favor of big firms. They say litigants banding together in a class-action lawsuit have a better chance of getting companies to answer publicly for illegal activities and that fears of such a suit can discourage law breaking.

The consumer protection agency wrote the rule after conducting a lengthy, multi-year study of the issue. Opponents of the rule say the study is flawed and that arbitration is cheaper and faster than class-action lawsuits and produces better awards for consumers.

OTHER CHALLENGES

The Chamber is exploring a prompt legal challenge to the rule, said Matt Webb, senior vice president for its legal reform institute.

Another possible challenge could come from the acting comptroller of the currency, Keith Noreika. He is laying groundwork to invoke an untested provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law that allows the council of the country's top financial regulators to nullify a consumer agency rule if they decide it threatens the safety and soundness of the banking system.

Rohit Chopra, senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America and former CFPB assistant director, said a lawsuit will probably fail because the law says the agency can restrict arbitration as long as it hews to its study.

He said the Dodd-Frank provision that the comptroller's office is looking at was meant to keep risks to the financial system at bay.

"To suggest that this rule would cause a financial crisis is ridiculous on its face," he said.

(Reporting by Pete Schroeder; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe and David Gregorio)

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump is increasingly unlikely to nominate Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen next year for a second term, and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn is the leading candidate to succeed her, Politico reported on Tuesday, citing four people close to the process.

A day ahead of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen's testimony to Congress on the state of the U.S. economy, two of her colleagues cited low wage growth and muted inflation as reasons for caution on further interest rate increases.

View post:
Republicans strike back at new US ban on forced arbitration - Reuters

By

July 11, 2017, 4:01 PM EDT

House Republicans rejected Donald Trumps steep budgets cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency as members of the presidents party instead offered a trim in spending for the environmental regulator.

Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.

Get our newsletter daily.

The White House had proposed a record 31 percent cut to the agencys roughly $8 billion budget, telling lawmakers it wanted to cut 3,200 jobs and shrink or eliminate a wide swath of programs, including those aimed cutting lead poisoning and improving the health of the Great Lakes. Instead, congressional appropriators released a bill Tuesday that would slice the agencys budget by 6.5 percent to $7.5 billion.

While the overall fate of spending bills in Congress is unclear, GOP Senators have also indicated they wont go along with Trumps plan. The House bill is scheduled to be considered by a panel of the Appropriations Committee Wednesday, the first formal step of many before it could make it to the presidents desk for signature.

"Trumps proposed budget was a fantasy. It is hard to imagine that many sane lawmakers could support it," said Frank ODonnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "Trump is so weakened politically that he has no political capital to use on this issue."

The $31.4 billion bill also includes more modest reductions in spending for the Interior Department, which runs the national parks, protects endangered species and plays a primary role in permitting oil, gas and coal development on federal lands and waters.

House Republicans are drafting a set of spending bills that largely rejects Trumps overall call for $54 billion in domestic agency cuts, while they propose giving nearly $20 billion more to the military than Trump requested. Lawmakers of both parties had already warned EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt that the administrations plans for the agency werent going to stick.

Read More: Trump Spurs Bipartisanship as Lawmakers Vow to Stop His EPA Cuts

"These are all proposals we are unlikely to retain," Representative Ken Calvert, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee in charge of the agencys budget, told Pruitt at an earlier budget hearing.

The bill would still provide funds to help the administration offer buyouts to EPA employees and reflects the administrations goal to rein in outdated, unnecessary and potentially harmful regulations at the EPA, the committee said in a statement.

Separately, an appropriations bill funding the Energy Department acquiesces to Trumps call the kill off the agencys experimental research arm known as ARPA-E, and takes steps to eliminate the agencys loan guarantee program. The bill, slated for a key committee vote Wednesday, also slashes funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency by almost $1 billion, though thats still nearly $500 million more than what Trump proposed.

Read the original here:
House Republicans Reject Trump's Bid to Slash EPA's Funding - Bloomberg

HARTFORD >> House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled a new budget proposal amid growing calls for the General Assembly to end the current stalemate and pass a two-year state spending plan.

The GOP budget unlike a competing proposal from majority Democrats contains no tax increases. It also maintains school aid, caps future borrowing and abandons Gov. Dannel P. Malloys plan to extract $400 million in teacher pension payments from municipalities.

We need to vote on a budget that addresses all the issues that have led to perpetual deficits over the last seven years, said House Minority Leader Themis Klarides, R-Derby.

The massive tax increases that Democrats have rammed through without a single Republican vote have failed to solve our problems, Klarides said.

Advertisement

House Speaker Joe Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, said the Republican proposal contains some good ideas and predicted House members on Tuesday will begin work on a new budget and hope to pass a spending plan by the end of the year.

Some of these [GOP] proposals are interesting and we will look at them, Aresimowicz said. But some are problematic.

The latest GOP budget comes as Malloy continues to operate the state under a limited executive order that will soon cause massive across the board spending cuts, including significant reductions in municipal aid, school funding, transportation projects and social services.

Joe DeLong, executive director for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said the time for budget proposals is over.

Its deja vu all over again, Delong said, quoting Yankee great Yogi Berra. We have seen enough dueling budget proposals. We think there are a lot of good ideas but its time to get the job done.

The Republican budget released Tuesday marks the most comprehensive spending plan by the GOP House caucus.

The House GOP plan seeks to limit state borrowing to $1.3 billion per year, a major drop from the $2.2 billion the state borrowed in 2015. It also calls for eliminating hospital property taxes and altering health insurance and pension plans through statutory changes, which means passing new laws or amending existing ones.

Republicans would also eliminate the cap on motor vehicle tax rates, reduce the state workforce, offer communities some mandate relief, preserve municipal aid and generate $768 million in savings over the next two fiscal years by freezing wages.

The GOP said its budget would eliminate a $5.1 billion budget deficit over the next two years.

Klarides said the employee savings can be achieved without opening existing union contracts or retirement plans.

The changes we would make are all through state statute changes, Klarides said. They do not have to be negotiated.

Aresimowicz questioned that assessment. Some court cases say you cant change benefits once people retire, he noted.

House Democrats recently offered a budget that relies on revenue increases, namely a higher sales tax and a 10 percent surcharge on food and beverage. Malloy, a Democrat, has rejected new tax increases.

The difficulty in passing a budget is rooted in math Republicans and Democrats are tied in the state Senate and Democrats hold a slim 79-72 vote majority in the House.

Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman, a Democrat, can break a tie vote in the Senate, giving Democrats ultimate control of the chamber if they hold on to all members of their caucus.

That narrow balance of power was not lost on Klarides, who pointed out in past years, when Democrats had comfortable majorities in both chambers, party leaders could allow members to vote against a budget and still pass the spending plan they wanted.

We would have a budget now if Democrats had enough votes, Klarides said. So that tells you people are out there who are not happy.

DeLong also noted the political difference this year. The is the first time in years the Connecticut General Assembly has had to work with someone else to get this done, he said.

Aresimowicz said a budget led by Democrats will soon emerge.

We have made good progress understanding other peoples proposals, Aresimowicz said. I am confident we will have a budget agreement by the end of the month.

Read more:
Connecticut House Republicans release new state budget plan - New Haven Register