Who's using food stamps

Food stamps are once again in the news, as a result of the farm bill's passage last week.  I collected and published some information the last time it came 'round; here's the recap. Details from the SNAP program annual reportage, here: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snapmain.htm.  Assembled into usable form here: http://www.jrandrews.org/politics/snap_program.ods.

The annual report is interesting because it helps characterize who the users are, how long they stay in the program, and what the different categories include.  Note that the "welfare queens" we hear about in the news actually are one of the cohorts discussed in the report, though they're not called by that loaded name.

Overall statistical graphs; note once again the astonishing efficiency of the program.

participation:

efficiency:

74% of small businesses to fire workers?

Gotta love this.  The Washington Examiner headline is "74% of small businesses will fire workers, cut hours under Obamacare" (http://washingtonexaminer.com/74-of-small-businesses-will-fire-workers-cut-hours-under-obamacare/article/2533131).  The report on which the article is based (http://uschambersmallbusinessnation.com/uploads/Chamber%20Small%20Business%20Survey%20Q2%207%2016%2012.pdf) says "Despite the Administration’s delay of the employer mandate by a year, small businesses expect the requirement to negatively impact their employees. 27% say they will cut hours to reduce full time employees, 24% will reduce hiring, and 23% plan to replace full time employees (30 hours per week or more) with part-time workers to avoid triggering the mandate." (24+27+23=74)  The actual questions asked of the 1304 businesses surveyed aren't available--and the 3 percentages above are obviously not mutually exclusive.  In fact, the first and last statistics say basically the same thing.  How is this honest reporting--even if it is honest surveying (which also seems doubtful)?

Filibustering

One way to examine the history of filibustering is to look at the number of cloture motions (motions to end debate) filed. The history is interesting; apparently there was a rule prior to 1806 which limited debate in the senate.  I'm still looking for a reliable reference, but one anecdote says "Aaron Burr recommended getting rid of the rule because it was almost never used, and besides, senators were gentlemen who knew when to stop talking."

Here's some data about cloture motions, and thus, possibly, who uses the filibuster the most.  It looks like Republicans take the prize for escalating the filibuster when they're in the minority; Democrats continue to use it when they become the minority at roughly the same level as was previously used by Republicans.  Then Republicans become the minority, and again increase use of the filibuster.

Here's another take on the graph, and some really interesting analysis of its meaning: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html

And some related points: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/16/wonkbook-10-facts-that-explain-the-filibuster-fight/

Raw data in OpenOffice spreadsheet form is at http://www.jrandrews.org/politics/cloture.ods.  Data sources are:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Politics as Usual

During the first George W. Bush presidency, I began to notice a real gap between reality and "reality as described by politicians".  That gap was always there, of course, but earlier in my life, I think it was more easily-discerned than it is now.  The first example that was obvious to me was the fiction that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 had something (anything!) to do with Al Qaeda.  The administration, aided by a number of commentators, most notably from Fox News, very effectively made that link in many people's minds, in spite of being forced to explicitly deny that such a link existed.

This blog exists as a place to dump data, mostly. Opinions are easily debated, and are certainly debatable, but the actual facts should not be in question--and in today's news environment, they often are. While I hold political opinions, they're mutable, and should be mutable--they should change if the available data show they aren't good, informed, logical opinions.  The data should drive them, not some random ideas held together with the opinions of others. Naturally, what I post here will be influenced by my opinions, but I have never been afraid of opposing data, and indeed, I have often changed my position in response to data.  I challenge you to oppose my data with better data, or a more insightful presentation of the data.

It is only when we agree on facts that we can have fruitful discussions of policy.