Economic Pictures Still Sucks - Especially If You're Young

I am going to get a little wonky in this article. If you don't want to read the details, here is the summary: Older folks (55+) are staying in the work force more, younger people (25-) are not in the work force and the net effect is that the total percent of people working has declined. You may now skip to What You Should Be Reading below

Net effect graphically:

U.S. Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate. Source bls.gov.

An interesting article by Ben Casselman at 538 about the declining labor force participation rate reminded me that all the happy talk about the unemployment rate is pure bunk.  He applies some modeling to conclude that of the 8 million missing jobs illustrated by our graph above, some were lost due to demographic trends and things like fewer teens. Ben's somewhat charitable assessment of the Obama recovery:

Our final tally, then, is that 2 to 4 million of our original 8 million “missing workers” might return to the labor force as the economy improves. That’s a lot of people: If all of them were considered unemployed, the unemployment rate would now stand at between 7.8 percent and 9 percent, down significantly from the worst of the recession, but high enough to suggest an economy that is still far from fully healed.

However, fellow SLOB, W.C. Varones pointed out on Twitter that Ben's explanatory model was also bunk.  The situation is actually worse.

@wcvarones @NYTimeskrugman great article on missing jobs and real unemployment rate from 538. http://t.co/G2W29QNmYA
— B Daddy (@BDaddyLiberator) March 27, 2014

The link is to a great article by the indomitable Zero Hedge that looks at the data underlying the top level statistics.  I downloaded my own data from the BLS to illustrate.

Here is the civilian labor force participation rate for the geezers since 2000:

U.S. Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate for age 55+. Source bls.gov.

And here is the same data for the youngsters (16-24).

U.S. Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate (16-24). Source bls.gov.

It is pretty obvious that the drop in participation rate is far great for the younger age population.  Demographic trends of the older folks retiring is pure bunk.  These statistics bode ill for the future because we aren't getting youth employed when they should be starting their working lives.  The "real" unemployment rate?  Who knows, but just based on the 8 million lost jobs, it would be 11.8%.  Even if you don't think that is a fair analysis, that represents lost production in the economy and lost income to the population as a whole.  It's a little late in the game for Obama to be blaming Bush.  And as for you millenials who keep voting for Obama and his cronies, what is wrong with you?

Late add:  You know what would really help youth unemployment? Increasing the minimum wage to further disconnect their pay from their skill levels.


What You Should Be Reading.

• Dean updates us on the High Speed Choo-Choo debacle. Bottom line, maybe not so fast.  I love Neel Kashkari's retort to someone who claimed the voters approved this. "They voted for a train about twice as fast and half the price."
• College Insurrection, because they cover the college scene from a unique conservative perspective.
• About Bob Brewer's campaign for District Attorney, because maybe we need a DA who didn't oppose gun rights in D.C. v Heller and will work to normalize the medical marijuana situation in the city.  (This is not an endorsement of Brewer, I just have issues with Bonnie Dumanis who was also weak on Prop D as well.)

My Son May Lose His Job

. . . If the city of San Diego passes a minimum wage hike.  The San Diego City Council has taken the first step to put a separate minimum wage hike on the ballot.  This is a terrible idea beyond the usual arguments against a minimum wage increase.  But, first the issue with a hike at all.  The argument gets made that there is some right to be paid a certain amount of money just because one work's a full time job.  It doesn't matter if the worker's skills can command that amount compensation.  The practical effect of increasing the minimum wage is to pick some winners and some losers.  Some employers have said that they would cut staff.  My son makes minimum wage; I don't want him to lose his job if his employer makes that choice to keep down labor costs.  From the WSJ:

Just over half of U.S. businesses that pay the minimum wage would hire fewer workers if the federal standard is raised to $10.10 per hour, according to a survey by a large staffing firm to be released Wednesday. But the same poll found a majority of those companies would not cut their current workforce.
About two-thirds of employers paying the minimum wage said they would raise prices for goods or services in response to an increase, the survey by Express Employment Professionals found. About 54% of minimum-wage employers would reduce hiring if the federally mandated rate increased by $2.85 per hour. A smaller share—38% — said they would lay off employees if the wage increase favored by President Barack Obama becomes law.

Expressed graphically from the same article, here are the percent of companies responding to the yes/no question: If the minimum wage were to increase to $10.10 per hour, would your company . . .

The argument for the minimum wage hike is couched in terms of the earning power of a single individual making that wage providing for a family.  If that is the argument, then why isn't the minimum wage different for teenage students living at home.  Why isn't it different for a bunch of single men or women sharing a small apartment?  What if you have a chronic illness? Shouldn't you get paid more?

In fact none of those circumstances matter, because they ignore the justice for the employer, who needs to get productive labor from the work force to stay in business.  It's also unfair to consumers who will have to pay more.  It's unfair to those workers who will lose jobs.  It's unfair to the unemployed who might not get a chance to get a job.  If you are going to argue fairness why isn't fairness for those groups mentioned?

Finally, increasing the minimum wage just in the city limits is ludicrous.  Our city has a hard enough time competing because we live in California, but to lose jobs to Poway and El Cajon is egregiously stupid.  Do Democrats want their party to be synonymous with unemployment?  It would seem so.

What You Should Be Reading

• KT Cat and Dean both discuss the disgusting burning of human fetal remains in England.
• Waves of banker suicides around the world?  Leading indicator that is time to cash out capital gains from this bull market? H/T WC Varones.
• For a dying party, the GOP seems curiously successful.
• James Poulos examines the role of Asian-American Democratic legislators in killing affirmative action legislation for California public universities in Cal Watchdog.  From the comments: Democrats cannot take Asians votes for granted as they do the Black voter, . . .

Mayor Faucloner Meets my Neighbors in South Clairemont

And some of them were a tad rude.

Kevin Faulconer wearing his SDSU Aztec tie at South Clairemont Rec Center

I attended the inaugural "Meet the Mayor" session yesterday and was impressed with the Mayor's focus.  Since I can't find any press coverage, I am providing a summary and a little editorial comment of my own.  (I'm a blogger not a journolist.  Misspell intentional.)  I had to leave a little early, and I left a little earlier than I had to, which I will discuss later.

There were about 75 people on hand for the event.  Faulconer took the stage and joke about being feeling even taller than usual.  He summarized some key early accomplishments and efforts from his new administration.

• The appointment of new Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman is going to result in clear standards of conduct for officers and clear expectations.  The new budget will have funds for recruiting and retention of officers.
• The mayor met with the mayor and city council of Tijuana, an important regional relationship.  Manufacturing on either side of the border can result in increased jobs for the region.
• He will emphasize open government.  He has killed the policy on deleting emails after one year.  
• The U.S. Open is coming to San Diego in 2021. He can't guarantee as exciting a finish as Tiger Woods vs Rocco Mediate in 2008. 
• He appointed of Kris McFadden to start fixing issues with storm water and the streets as head of Storm Water and Transportation.
• He has one month to prepare the city budget.  The budget priorities will be on investments in neighborhoods that have been neglected, continuing pension reform and competition for services.  Specifically he will target more street repairs, library hours and recreation center hours.  The recovering economy and reforms are paying off. 
• He wants to bring a customer service attitude for all of the city.  The city is delivering services for the taxpayer who pays the bills.  
• His major focus is on getting San Diegans back to work. Not only getting new companies to come to the city, but allowing existing companies to expand operations.  A healthy economy is key to providing the money to pay for the needed services the city provides.

He then opened the floor to Q&A:

Q: [I had a little difficulty understanding this first question] What are we doing with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding with regards to neighborhoods?

A: The mayor discussed using some of the money to repair sidewalks by shifting a greater percentage of the money to the city.

Backstory here.

Q: Rambling question about Sea World and reading from an LA Times editorial about orcas in captivity.  Faulconer politely asked what the question might be.

A: Sea World's 50th anniversary was cause for city recognition.  They are a national leader in conservation.  The city council unanimously recognized Sea World with a proclamation of March as "Sea World" month.

This was the first PETA activist question.  This was Q&A for the mayor, not a forum to grandstand.

Q: Clairemont-Mesa Blvd and Morena have huge potholes that need fixing. [Ed comment: Oh yeah! and add Clairemont Dr.]  Also many of the boards and commissions run by the city need members.

A: "I love fixing pot holes."  [This drew applause and laughter.]  Faulconer discussed a process improvement that the audit committee helped discover in geographically grouping pot hole repairs. [Ed. note: That it took the audit committee to help figure this out is more reason for managed competition.]

Faulconer said the city's web site had information on commission and board opportunities.  He said that he had started on the board of Mission Bay Park, which is right near us.  "Maybe the next mayor of San Diego is in the audience."  [Ed note: I found a little challenging to find these opportunities when searching the web site and they are scattered on various pages.]

A follow on discussion on the Balboa park celebration ensued.  He said that the celebration would be something San Diegans could be proud of and would be affordable.  It will focus on the park and museums and San Diego's heritage.  A grandiose "international" celebration is not in the works.  He noted that if an L.A. firm had been involved as the key planner, that is no longer the case.

Q: Pulling permits is arduous and difficult process. It's a horrible process.  What can you do?
A: "We can do something." Faulconer promised the city will have clear rules of the road and will play no favorites in the permitting process. He added that the city will speed up the process and make known the stage of the process through an on-line system.  "Time is money." Getting permits process improved is tied to economic development in his view.

Q: A Sorrento Vally man asked why there was not community signage for Sorrento Valley, unlike Clairemont or other neighborhoods.  He said that the city seems to have no rules and no process to make this decision.
A: "I don't like to hear 'no rules, no process.'" [Ed note: I loved that this was his first instinct.  We need this in the mayor's office after Filner's multiple illegal debacles.] He directed his aide to put it on the board to look into.

Q: Where are we at with the Oversize Vehicle Ordnance?
A: The mayor said that although the council has approved the ordnance, it must still be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission.  However, San Diego is the only large coastal city that lacks such a law.  He anticipates a late summer or early fall decision and the city will present a full defense of the law.

Q: Some crank started to talk about the courts and the banking system and rambled on.
A: Faulconer answered patiently that the courts were not in the mayor's jurisdiction.  He noted that Chief Zimmerman was re-instituting a professional standards unit for the police.

At this point two more questioners, obviously from PETA started in on Sea World again.  They were reading prepared statements, in one case off their cell phone.  At one point, the mayor asked if there was a question in there.  He stated that he respected their right to their opinion, but that there was obviously a difference of opinion.  He handled with all the class the previous mayor lacked.

I was not so sanguine.  At this point I walked out of the meeting, and I admit to uttering a profanity sotto voce on my way out.  (I was the tall guy in blue shirt and tie, if you were there.) I don't respect PETA activists because they do not deserve respect when they hijack a question and answer session for the community with their grandstanding.  In general, PETA uses violent and illegitimate methods because their belief that humans are lower than animals is illegitimate.  Its clear to me that the activists at the meeting were mentally damaged already, so my display of pique wasn't going to change that.

Overall, Mayor Faulconer was the excellent communicator and level headed, classy guy I voted for.  This was a great event.

Weekend Music Chill - Covers

For the life of me, I can't understand why I haven't posted these two versions of the rock classic "Mony, Mony."  First, the original with Tommy James and the Shondells.



And the remake with Billy Idol.



Comments welcome.

Today's Adventure in Government Health Care

I have government provided health care.  If you know me or read this blog, you can probably figure which program I am under.  On Christmas Day last year, my credit card was involved in a fraudulent transaction, possibly due to the Target breach, but I don't have any hard evidence as to the real culprit.  I didn't notice the fraud until January 12th, unfortunately.  When I reported it, my card was canceled and a new number issued.  So far, so not so bad.  Of course, recurring charges against the card stop as well.  One of the charges was for health insurance.  I will admit I should have checked what recurring charges that I had, but thought I had a little time.

On January 31, my coverage was canceled.  I didn't get a notice of cancelation until sometime in mid-February.  I immediately faxed in a re-enrollment form along with my new credit card information, thinking that I had solved the problem.  No chance that it would be easy. This was not accepted, in spite of my willingness to pay, because my case had to be "adjudicated." On March 12, I got a notice that I could submit a request for reinstatement, different from re-enrollment, which I promptly faxed, again with my credit card payment information and valid legal signature.   Then I was mailed a letter that arrived today, March 17, that congratulations, you are reinstated but could you please provide us a payment.  I can't seem to give these people my card enough times. Anticipating that they would again screw up, I had already tried to pay online on March 16.

On March 17, Mrs. Daddy needed an appointment, but of course she couldn't get one at our primary care, no insurance. She called the health benefits administrator and again, they asked for a credit card payment, which they finally took over the phone.  (Can't do it online or with a faxed, signed authorization, but we can take your card over the phone.)  She waited a few hours and called back for an appointment.  Nope.  The woman taking appointments said, I can see that you paid, but the charges haven't gone through, so we can't make an appointment.  Of institutions that accept credit cards, no one but the federal government won't accept my credit card for payment for services at the time I make the payment.  Even the stinking DMV doesn't wait for the payment to process.

Mrs. Daddy will try to get an appointment again tomorrow.  I am not keeping anyone updated, because this just sucks enough.

Anyway, these guys are being put in charge of everyone's health care insurance now, so, good luck.

Dean, you need to alert Harry Reid of another liar over here.

What You Should Be Reading:

• Left Coast Rebel, with the best headline to sum up the administration's response to the Crimea situation.
• How about a little forcible anal rape in support of the "War on Drugs."
• Lying government statistics hide the "rot in the jobs numbers."
• Dalrock's observation: He must have been a very bad dog.
• Zerohedge presents more evidence that China's economy is unwinding and it will end badly.

What You Should Not Be Reading or Watching:

• Anything about twerking, cats, the first lady or other nonsense being used to promote the ACA.

ACA Repeal UPDATE - Sebelius Denies, BDaddy Checks the Facts

The Hill reported that HHS Secretary Sebelius is denying that she repealed Obamacare.  That wasn't the actual question, but she did say that there was not plan to delay the individual mandate until 2016 as the WSJ reported yesterday and I repeated on this blog.  That prompted me to review the policy in question.  Turns out... it's complicated.  But this is the ACA, what else would we expect?
If you want to read the relevant documents they are here, here, and here.  Here is how I break it down.

The March 5th memo states:

On December 19, 2013, CMS issued guidance indicating that individuals whose policies are cancelled because the coverage is not compliant with the Affordable Care Act qualify for a hardship exemption if they find other options to be more expensive, and are able to purchase catastrophic coverage.³ This hardship exemption will continue to be available until October 1, 2016, for those individuals whose non-compliant coverage is cancelled and who meet the requirements specified in the guidance. 

In English: hardship for cancellations extended.  The footnote links to the actual December 19 memo which applies only to cancelled policies that did not meet the ACA standards.  The actual change in policy is that the exemption for cancelled policies is extended to 2016.  The WSJ makes the point that there seems to be a lax standard for proving that one's cancelled coverage is a reason to opt out.  But that depends on how much scrutiny HHS gives to such hardship applications. Not mentioned is the real possibility, in my view, that such applications may be denied. Also, it is clear that the rule change only applies to exemption category 13, cancellations on the HHS Exemption Form.  This makes the sub-headline misleading: HHS quietly repeals the individual purchase rule for two more years.  What is not discussed in the article is that the cancellation process is different from other processes, because the individual must submit the hardship exemption to another insurer who offers catastrophic coverage before the exemption can be considered.

So what of the realities of the individual mandate.  Hardship exemptions do seem fairly easy to obtain, but the rub is that since the process is so arcane, no one is going to know how to do this ahead of tax filing time.  As a matter of fact, it seems likely that only the better educated and therefor more well off will file an exemption.  Here are some comforting words from the HHS on getting your exemption, from the "What happens next?" part of the form.

 Except for cancellations, send your complete, signed application to the address on page 4. We’ll follow-up with you within 1–2 weeks and let you know if we need additional information. If you get this exemption, we’ll give you an Exemption Certificate Number that you’ll put on your federal income tax return. If you don’t hear from us, visit HealthCare.gov, or call the Health Insurance Marketplace Call Center at 1-800-318-2596. See page 4 for next steps for cancellations. 

So what if you just don't pay?  Here is what the IRS has to say about that:

The IRS routinely works with taxpayers who owe amounts they cannot afford to pay. The law prohibits the IRS from using liens or levies to collect any individual shared responsibility payment. However, if you owe a shared responsibility payment, the IRS may offset that liability against any tax refund that may be due to you.

So, you are better off owing the feds taxes, which I have always told people, because they can't impose a lien.  

Bottom Line:

How much of an actual mandate still exists is a matter of conjecture and based on unknown future behavior of citizens and the HHS.  This is a set up for both tyranny and revolt.  

A Whimper not A Bang - ACA Quietly Repealed by Sebelius

So this is what victory over the Affordable Care Act looks like.

But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you "believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy" or "you consider other available policies unaffordable."
This lax standard—no formula or hard test beyond a person's belief—at least ostensibly requires proof such as an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that "you experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance," which only requires "documentation if possible." And yet another waiver is available to those who say they are merely unable to afford coverage, regardless of their prior insurance. In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one.

Well that was weird.  The ACA individual mandate, the whole Supreme Court fight, if you recall, was about its core essentiality to the success of the law.  And now the same Sebelius, defendant in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, has very quietly gutted the individual mandate. As the WSJ article quoted above points out, the longer the mandate isn't enforced, the less likely that it will EVER be enforced.  And I thought we were going to have to wait until 2017 to have a chance at repeal.

Katherine, we've got to gut this thing before the GOP can.

Republicans should publicize this ruling far and wide, declaring victory over this hated law.  Then they need to work on real health care reform, because the problems with health care that has caused the electorate to tolerate the Democrats aren't going away either.  As I have published before, here is a start:

Liberty Movement Health Care Plan (first published in 2011):

Here is the plan that John Mackey of Whole Foods proposed, my comments in italics.

1. "Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts." Patients who have skin in the game and market knowledge will reduce costs faster than any government program.
2. "Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits."
3. Allow competition across state lines.
4. "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover."
5. "Enact tort reform."
6. "Make costs transparent."
7. "Enact medicare reform." Medicare policies that are mimicked by the private sector are strangling the medical profession.
8. Revise tax law to make it easier to donate to those without insurance.

To expand on these points.

1. The government could help lead this effort by reforming first Medicaid, by turning it into an insurance subsidy program for the poor. But the program would require those in the program to pay a high copay until a low catastrophic cap was reached. Such a system would create a market for a system where people have more incentive to shop for best value in medical care. This system could then be applied to Medicare.
2. The next big issue is that health care is tied to employment. My first impulse is to forbid the offering of insurance through employment, but that would make a conservative social engineer, instead of a liberal one. Removing the tax advantage would at least set a level playing field. To date, the portion of employee compensation that comes in the form of employer health insurance isn't taxed as compensation. This ties employees to their companies and needlessly. You would think that liberals would be opposed to a scheme where tax policy gives corporations leverage over employees. However, I dislike schemes whereby the government imposes on employee relations, so I will settle for leveling the playing field.
3. Interstate competition is not the norm in insurance. Surely the federal government has the right to "regulate" as in "make regular" this portion of interstate commerce, by insuring that any insurance offered for sale in a state would be available in the fifty states. Increasing competition will probably be opposed by the insurance industry, but freer markets benefit consumers.
4. One size never fits all. So mandating coverage should be banned. Insurance is always tricky business, even homeowner's insurance, as Road Dawg can attest to. Along with no mandates will be the need to enforce clear language in policies and communications with policy holders. I am a libertarian, but not so naive as to believe that some insurance companies won't try to wriggle out of agreements to save money. Court is expensive for individual consumers, so regulation that enforces good practices of transparency and clarity will be necessary. But regulation should always aim for simplicity and this also needs to be part of a reform package.
5. With regards to tort reform, we have seen positive results in Texas, where access to care increased after passage of reform.
6. Cost transparency is important to enable process improvement and allow patient choice. Most people don't know the true cost of a medical visit, even after the visit is over. Here again, Medicaid reform could lead the way, by insisting that patients receive better notice and understanding of their bill.
7. Medicare policies with regards to reimbursement are arcane and lead to huge misunderstandings on what is covered and unexpected bills. Transforming Medicare to save it for those who truly need it, into an insurance subsidy scheme, will get the government out of the rule writing business and free up insurance plans to compete.
8. Allowing Americans to donate to those who need health care insurance might make little difference, but maybe not. I see lots of do-gooder millionaires wanting to pay more taxes. Maybe they could pay for poor people's insurance in the interim.

Visiting Carl DeMaio's Campaign

Mrs. Daddy and I visited Carl DeMaio's campaign headquarters today, meeting up with family there.  I got a minute to chat with DeMaio about the campaign. I told him that I appreciated his work on Proposition D and Proposition B.  He related that the effort to reform county pensions in Ventura County had run into problems because of unions trying to block signature gatherers.  A little research on that issue revealed that the Ventura County sheriff had joined the union protestors, which any taxpayer or advocate of free speech should find disturbing.  DeMaio said that "we" had been able to get the intimidation and blocking to stop.  I was not clear as to whom he was referring to, as this was not an interview.

He also discussed the possibility of a future ballot measure to fix pensions state-wide, which would include public votes on pensions.  His take was that politicians get re-elected with union help, in part by approving generous pension benefits.  When the bill comes due, those politicians are long gone, having reaped the electoral benefits, but leaving the taxpayer holding the bag.  This is why the public should get to vote on pensions.  He also said that pension increases should be limited to the increases of the CPI.

Tony Krvaric was also there, it was good to shake his hand.  I congratulated him on his win in the San Diego Rostra mayoral prediction contest.  He described Faulconer's mayoral campaign as "flawless." 

What You Should Be Reading:

• Costa Mesa city council members are involved in a fight with the police union over contract negotiations.  The truth about whether the union and its legal team were behind a false report of drunk driving against a council member may come out soon when the P.I. who phoned in the complaint is deposed. 
• Not Craig Gustafson, formerly of the U-T, who is now Mayor Faulconer's Press Secretary.  I thought he had done a great job covering local politics at the U-T. Congratulations and sorry to see him leave reporting.
• Kathy Hamilton at CalWatchdog.com provides details that prove there is really no money for the high speed choo-choo.

Reporters who want to receive Mayor Faulconer's news releases, please email me at cgustafson@sandiego.gov if u don't get them already.
— Craig Gustafson (@gustafsoncraig) March 7, 2014

Weekend Music Chill

This week's music somehow snuck into my 80's mellow station on Pandora, even though released in 2005.  I find this version pretty relaxing.

Here is Sufjan Stevens with the Adult Contemporary Version of his hit Chicago.



From the same Pandora station here is Bryan Ferry with Don't Stop the Dance:




P.S. I seeded this Pandora station with a single song and it has been by far my consistent and favorite.

When Are Those Poor People Going To Give Up?

An old joke about the war on poverty is that we won't win it until those poor people give up.  Given that this war is 50 years old, the joke is getting old.  So are government programs that never achieve their goals but are never abandoned.  Occasionally, it's good to reflect on the decades of fail.

• War on Poverty - 50 years, no end in sight.
• War on Drugs - 42 years, no end in sight.
• War on Terror - 12 years, no end in sight.  (The enabling legislation is still on the books.)

I didn't object to waging war to dislodge the Taliban from Afghanistan, but waging war on something as nebulous as terrorism was always going to be an excuse for never ending appropriations, not to mention a rapacious approach to violating our civil rights.  When politicians want to launch a "war," we should be very afraid.

So how do we think the battle to ensure every American has health insurance is going to turn out?  How much is our government really going to effect global warming?  Will federal action do anything to reduce income inequality? (In fact, it will increase the inequality by lining the pockets of already wealthy K street lobbyists.)

Epic fail after epic fail and the left continues to cling bitterly to the belief that more government will solve more problems.  How leftism can be seen as hip escapes me, is it hip to be a moron? 

What You Should Be Reading

• Professor Perry helpfully points out that all low wage jobs added in the last year were for less than 30 hours a week.  
• Ilya Somin, blogging at Volokh Conspiracy, has a good take on the situation in the Crimea.  I think that some of the hysteria is overblown, but that some retaliation is in order.
• KTCat has an even more succinct summation of the Ukraine's position.

Can We Kill This Choo-Choo Project Already?

Under the heading of "What You Should Be Reading," Cal Watchdog.com certainly comes to mind.  They have great coverage of key California state issues from what appears to be a conservative perspective, but that might be the result of all the bad governance by the lefties that run this state.  Chris Reed is a frequent contributor and covers California politics with a sharp eye.  He has come to the conclusion that California's "Top Dems" want the high speed rail project killed because they aren't applying their usual thugishness in propelling it forward.  Calling it the "Dog That Didn't Bark," he cites two main facts.  First, the handling of the initiative intended to shut down the train:

The Secretary of State’s Office released the official title and summary for a proposed anti-bullet train ballot measure prepared by the AG’s office, and it seems downright reasonable and fair.

Second, he cites inept lawyering by the California AG in answering the question of how Jerry Brown is going to kill the train without appearing to be doing so on purpose.

How are they going to pull this off? Through intentionally inept lawyering.
. . .
For five months after Judge Kenny’s ruling, the Brown administration didn’t question its legal reasoning one bit. Now the administration accuses the judge of ‘erecting obstacles found nowhere in the voter-approved bond act’ of 2008 that provided $9.95 billion in bond seed money for the project. Huh? How can the governor and attorney general make this argument now when they didn’t before? 

Well, maybe.  The problem with this theory is that it makes Jerry Brown out to be some Frank Underwood super-pol.  (I just started watching Season 1 of House of Cards, and yes, I am hooked.) David  Burge has other ideas about U.S. pols in general.

Most laughable thing about House of Cards: politicians portrayed as Machiavellian super-geniuses. Real DC pols are 92-IQ shameless thugs.
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) February 20, 2014

But we Californians are due a break.  I know, we keep electing leftist thugs.  But could we at least kill this train before it destroys businesses and farmland in the Central Valley.  God has punished them enough with this drought.

What You Should Be Reading

• Holman Jenkins explains why, even if you believe in man-made global warming, getting the government involved is a huge mistake. Bottom line, there is no government action which will solve this problem faster than the free market.
• KTCat views the vetoed AZ religious liberty law through a lens crafted in Riyadh. 
• Fellow SLOBs give their perspectives on Bitcoin, theoretical and practical.  Meanwhile some idiot at Thinkprogress does no thinking in writing that Bitcoin is about (drum roll please) white male privilege.  Ms. Strasser is thoroughly schooled in the comments. Women and minorities for whom she condescendingly thought to speak point out that they are capable of making economic decisions for themselves.
• Dalrock dissects the realities of declining SMV for divorcées. 
• Kimberly Strassel reveals the latest ongoing Obama IRS assault on conservatives and Tea Partyers.

My Enemy's Enemy

. . . Can still be my enemy.  The left has set out to stifle my free speech on social issues.  I am compelled to recognize homosexual unions as marriages.  I am compelled to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortion. If I am a Catholic organization, I am compelled to pay for insurance for contraception.  All of these are attacks intended to delegitimize my social beliefs through government coercion.  So shouldn't I be thankful that there is a world leader ready to fight for the value of social conservatives?  Owen Matthews reports:

In his annual state of the nation speech to Russia’s parliament in December, Vladimir Putin assured conservatives around the world that Russia was ready and willing to stand up for ‘family values’ against a tide of liberal, western, pro-gay propaganda ‘that asks us to accept without question the equality of good and evil’. Russia, he promised, will ‘defend traditional values that have made up the spiritual and moral foundation of civilisation in every nation for thousands of years’. Crucially, Putin made it clear that his message was directed not only at Russians — who have already been protected from ‘promotion of non-traditional relationships’ by recent legislation — but for ‘more and more people across the world who support our position’.

Well, maybe not so much.  Here's the problem; Putin is a corrupt tyrant who has blood on his hands.  Other than that, he makes a great champion of family values.  Holman Jenkins recounts the tale of Alexander Litvinenko, who had evidence that Putin benefited from a series of bombings that the Russian state security apparatus manufactured themselves but blamed on the Chechens.  We see Putin's heavy hand in the Ukraine, where he has used bribery and economic pressure to undermine the desires of the Ukrainians for greater prosperity through economic ties to Europe.  (Whether that will lead to prosperity is anyone's guess, but it is their right to make the choice.)  Putin's machinations are well chronicled.

Taking up with the likes of Putin is never morally acceptable, nor it will it prove to be a winning strategy.  As much as I see the leftist tile of this administration as tyrannical (who else would be unashamedly suing the Little Sisters of the Poor?), throwing in with tyrants only weakens our cause.  The Russian Orthodox church has seen fit to again make an alliance with a tyrannical Russian government.  Historically in Europe, the alliance between church and state ultimately weakened the church, as it lost focus on its founder and became enmeshed in politics.  Some on the Christian Right, such as the World Congress of Families and Bryan Fischer are praising Putin.  I can not let this pass.  Our point of view will prevail, because it is grounded in fundamental and eternal truths, not because we find tyrants to help enforce our ideas.  We don't need to make a deal with the devil.

What You Should Be Reading

• The nomination of Vice Admiral Mike Rodgers to head both the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command has opened the door to more revelations about the extent of Iranian penetration of U.S. Navy networks.  I warned that our tacit admission regarding Stuxnet would have consequences. 
• Dean adds more to the leftism = fascism meme that started this post.  The problem with your California high-speed choo-choo? Apparently, not enough Mussolini. 
• The most under-reported story in America? The tragedies that the divorce industry wreaks on the American family. H/T Temple of Mut.

Minimum Wage - Robots Replacing Workers

The minimum wage laws in this country are daggers to the heart of opportunity for our poorest and least skilled citizens.  Those in favor argue that it helps the poor because they get paid more, and that there is no adverse impact on the economy, overall.  I disagree, but want to focus on the very people that the left proposes to help, the unskilled.  Take South Africa for instance.  The ministry of labor sets minimum wages in various employment areas.  But the labor unions in South Africa are closely allied with ruling ANC and they impose wage rates even on non-union sectors of the economy.  As a consequence, there is massive unemployment in South Africa amongst the largely unskilled work force, because they are not skilled enough to be affordable to businesses.

Another way that minimum wages hit the unskilled is through automation.  It is no coincidence that the world leader in viticulture technology is France, where there are high minimum wages.  The best robots for picking and sorting grapes are used there.  I have personally witnessed McDonald's experiments with outsourcing the person who takes my order to who knows what country.  No less an authority on technology than Bill Gates makes this same point, businesses will invest in technology to displace entry level workers as minimum wages rise.  We risk having no entry level positions to train up our young people if we continue to boost the minimum wage.   The minimum wage isn't intended for a work force of older workers with families to support.  They should be expected to have amassed skills that would allow them to command a higher wage.

Product on sale above, replaces French workers pictured below.

As a compassionate society, those who need help but only make the minimum wage are helped through programs like Earned Income Credit, food stamps and medicaid.  We should carefully craft these programs so that there is an incentive for the working poor to make more money.  In other words, benefits should be phased out gradually as income rises.  But to impose the burden of helping the working poor on employers is unfair and will only result in more automation and fewer such jobs.  Even if the economy overall benefits from the improved efficiency such automation brings, raising the minimum wage will only exacerbate income inequality.

Locally, Todd Gloria proposed raising San Diego's minimum wage to $14.50 an hour.  Given that neighboring cities would not be bound by the law, the loss of San Diego jobs to Poway for instance is inevitable should this proposal become law.  Businesses that can relocate outside city limits will reap a windfall by comparison.  It is hard to see how this can help our city.  Big corporations such as Petco and Websense have relocated jobs to Texas.  Why would San Diegans want to provide more incentives for job losses?

This is a major reason why I so vehemently oppose David Alvarez for mayor and support Kevin Faulconer.  Alvarez is on the record as supporting minimum wage increases.  If he is mayor, there will be no stopping organized labor from prevailing in making San Diego a hostile location to start businesses and create jobs.  I admit that I have a personal interest in this issue.  My son works at minimum wage as a UFCW 135 member and I don't want him to lose his job.  Do we really want a city with far less opportunity for the unskilled and entry level job seekers?  I don't and voted for Kevin Faulconer because of it.

Manly Virtue

I have been taking some time off from blogging for self reflection.  I had found myself becoming overly pessimistic about America when time and again we have gone through rough times and reclaimed our vigor.  I wanted to say that these times seem different; that the people themselves have lost their way.  But surely people have said the same thing in other times.  So it occurs to me that the current age of lies will give way to the truth.  No, government is not going to deliver health care to more people and also make it cheaper.  No, women are not identical to men biologically or socially.  No, you cannot expect to borrow more than you take in indefinitely.  No, their will not be new green jobs, just jobs in industries that deliver value.

In the meantime, we have a new generation to raise.  There are many good men out there and I am privileged to be involved in their lives.  But they still could use a little advise. As for the women their age, I just want to scream at their mothers.  They seem to have raised a generation of self-centered sluts, who think they can waste their prime child bearing years on booze and random men and then wake up to find true love and a family as they approach spinsterhood.  Spoiler alert, ain't happening, no matter what you might hear on Christian Mingle.

For the young men I know, here is a little advice.  These aren't the most important things, it's just the stuff I notice you are not always doing right.

Be On Time. Insist on the Same.
Being on time is a sign of respect.  It is respecting the most valuable commodity of others.  When you are time, it offers evidence that you have your act together, you are organized and prepared.  When others are late, don't tolerate it.  If you can, leave and reschedule.  Otherwise, let them know you don't accept their tardiness.

Stop getting drunk.
Wine and beer are gifts from God.  Don't abuse them.  Alcohol is part of celebration.  Yes, we feel good when we drink.  But getting drunk says that you lack self-control.  It says that you can't deal with your life.  It puts you into dangerous situations because you lose situational awareness. Pace yourself.

Stop swearing.
Swearing doesn't make you sound tough, it makes you seem weak.  You have allowed circumstances to get the better of you, and you are advertising your defeat.  It also lacks class.   The most utilitarian reason to seldom swear is that there may come a time when swearing is needed to properly obtain someone's attention.  If you swear all the time, it won't be effective.

Take charge of your lives. 
To many hours in front of the screen with video games isn't going to bring you the life success you desire.  Neither employers nor sensible young ladies will think so either.  Put time each day into achieving your goals.  Some of your goals should require personal self-improvement, like getting into shape, or becoming an expert with a pistol.  Other goals should be oriented towards your career.  You don't have hours to waste becoming an expert on Modern Warfare.

That's a wrap, except for
What You Should Be Reading

• Terrorist attack goes unnoticed.  No one is officially saying that this attack on a power substation was a terrorist attack, but what else could it be? Involved snipers and the cutting of telephone lines before the attack.
• Puerto Rico debt downgraded to junk. Socialism in America, a foretaste. "The changes have been politically difficult. An attempt in December to overhaul the Puerto Rican pension fund for teachers led to a strike, lawsuits and a court order halting the changes until legal questions could be ironed out."
• A great commentary on why Christians shouldn't get worked up about gay marriage, by Matt Walsh (H/T Dalrock).  Maybe the church should be supporting getting government out of the marriage business and uphold its founding principles.  
• Dean skewers the administration logic that less employment is somehow good for America.
• KTCat uses a looney video (well a video of loons) to explain why libertarians should be helping social conservatives retain their freedom.

Government Gangsterism in San Diego

The news of indictments involving associates of Mexican businessman Susumo Azano makes for entertaining reading.  There is a trail of illegal campaign donations to various mayoral candidates funneled through a straw-donor and a social media guru.  The U-T is all over the story, with the best overall description of the case published in Sunday's paper.  I also want to give credit to Dave Maass, formerly of San Diego City Beat, who first broke the story of questionable campaign contributions by Azano in 2012.  The alleged motive for illegally funneling campaign contributions was so that Azano could slow down water front projects and gain a controlling interest in them after they ran into political trouble. From the U-T:

The prosecutor’s statement for the first time specifies a larger motive behind the financing scheme — creating California’s version of Miami’s tropical playground. 

While federal authorities have not identified the donor, court documents contain enough detail to indicate it is José Susumo Azano Matsura, a wealthy Mexican citizen who supplies surveillance equipment to the Mexican military and owns construction companies based in the state of Jalisco. 

The prosecutor said a candidate — who sources have identified as former Mayor Bob Filner — told the businessman that he didn’t have jurisdiction over the bayfront, but he may be able to help by holding up development of the Navy Broadway Complex so the businessman could gain control of the lease.

Further, one of Azano's associates, Ernesto Encinas, allegedly wanted to ensure that the new mayor installed a police chief to his liking in return for the contributions.

The motive of Encinas, who retired from the department in 2009 and now owns security consulting businesses, apparently was to install a new chief more amenable to issues surrounding alcohol licenses and entertainment venues to help his businesses.

Now these guilty parties are innocent until proven otherwise.  But the U.S. District Attorney would not have presented the indictments if their theory of the crime was not credible, and that is the real crime.  The rule of law is degenerating both nationally and locally when the success of business ventures is dependent on the good will of elected and appointed officials.  It opens the door for further corruption when we lack clear standards and processes that allow projects to go forward.  I wrote earlier about Filner's penchant for interfering with already approved projects.  The U-T chronicled a long list of its own.  Does anyone doubt that Filner lacked the power to disrupt the bayfront project?

Now there is news that Filner was quietly trying to remove Police Chief Landsdowne. It is not proved or known whether this was in response to Encinas' request.  But why should it matter.  The police view on licensing shouldn't be based on personal opinion or personalities, but on objective criteria such as arrests in the area for drunk and disorderly, or number of noise complaints.  The fact that a credible theory of the crime includes the belief that officials can get with arbitrary rulings to benefit themselves or their cronies is evidence of that we are on a road to tyranny.  Hayek knew what he was talking about.

What You Should Be Reading

• Leslie Eastman reports on how the Tea Party is much more alive and well than you think, with a great round up.
• Dean reinforces my point about lack of rule of law and gangsterism at the national level in the Obama administration.  Where is that guy that made the crappy YouTube trailer that caused our Ambassador in Benghazi to get killed, anyway?
• The twitter feed from @DaveMaass, who succinctly broke down the key elements of today's scandal and has links to key documents.
• China is halting banking transfers according to Forbes.  With all the developing world's currencies tanking, I can't help but think that there are fundamental problems with the international monetary order that are being covered up.  ZeroHedge refutes the idea that banking transfers are being halted, but opines that there are liquidity problems in China. 

Is Kashkari's Approach a Winner for Cal GOP? UPDATE - Announcement

I have a lot of respect for Steven Greenhut, who covers California politics very well, and founder of CalWatchdog.  Imagine my surprise when I saw an article in which he touted Neel Kashkari (pictured) as the best Republican candidate for Governor, running against Jerry Brown in 2014.

Enter 40-year-old Neel Kashkari, an Orange County financial executive of Indian descent who led the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) during the Bush administration. He has been canvassing the state, meeting with Republican leaders in Sacramento and building the foundation of a campaign. He has garnered a little insider-GOP buzz, although he has yet to announce his candidacy.
It’s odd that the Republicans’ most promising potential contender is a political novice who once voted for Barack Obama and is best known for heading a federal bank bailout program that generates much hostility among GOP voters. It’s either a sign of the party’s desperation or proof of its new-found openness to new messaging.

Something has to change for the Republican's fortunes to change in California, but running a candidate likely to antagonize your base doesn't seem the way to go. What does Kashkari have to say that does resonate with the base?  From the Mercury-News:

He  [Kashkari] claims that Brown hasn't adequately tackled California's biggest problems: the nation's highest poverty rate, the fifth-highest unemployment rate, and schools that rank toward the bottom.
"The narrative that 'California is back' is outrageous,'' he said. "The people on the street definitely know better."
He likened Brown to a teenager who shovels the state's mess under the bed to make the room look clean.

Making the connection between Democrat/leftist policies and greater unemployment is very important.  Those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder make the mistake of voting Democrat, often because they think it will help them.  Of course, when jobs, especially entry-level jobs, dry up, those at the bottom are hurt worst.  Democrats believe that promised generous government benefits promised will turn these voters into reliably Democratic voters. Pointing out the flawed logic is important to breaking the left's grip on this state's politics. From the same article:

HIGH-SPEED RAIL: Kashkari calls it “the biggest example we have of misplaced priorities in our state.” He calls Brown’s plan to divert carbon emission cap-and-trade revenue to the project a “gimmick,” nothing more than a Band-Aid on an imaginary financial plan.

Some of the articles I have read on Kashkari emphasize the fact that no Republican is likely to unseat Brown for Governor, and go on to say that what matters is the primary message from the top of the GOP ticket.  Emphasizing economic issues and being a social moderate make Kashkari attractive to Greenhut:

On the surface, Kashkari seems right out of the moderate camp reminiscent of failed multimillionaire candidate Meg Whitman. He is advised by former aides to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mitt Romney. A former Goldman Sachs vice president in San Francisco, he favors abortion rights and gay marriage.
But, after a 45-minute interview with him on Monday, I thought he had something lacking in many California GOP moderate candidates: passion. Most interestingly, Kashkari is packaging Republican issues in a way that’s designed to appeal to people who wouldn’t normally vote for Republicans.

I am not ready to endorse Kashkari, especially given his involvement in TARP and his vote for Obama, but his approach to California politics is worth considering.

UPDATE

It's official.

It will take a lot of work to turn CA around, but we can do this. And we must. Join us at http://t.co/rXUUjDZQsl pic.twitter.com/9ETneEaXmD
— Neel Kashkari (@neelkashkari) January 22, 2014

What You Should Be Reading

• Negocios Loucos describes the absurd lengths to which the government is involved in verifying the source of his down payment for a home.  More police state nonsense revealed in what should be a source of joy, buying a home. It is indeed crazy business.
• Dean keeps us updated on the Governor Brown's latest antics with his High-Speed Choo-Choo Update.  Could this get repealed at the ballot box?
• Leslie predicts that the Drought Crisis will bring new regulations.  

Influencing the Culture - Economics of Divorce

Fellow SLOB blogger, KTCat, rightfully points out the overwhelming number of correlations between cultural dysfunction and economic blight both in the U.S. and overseas.  He asks tough questions and gets on my case over drug legalization because I believe he sees it as another step backward in maintaining a culture that caused our country to become a great and wealthy country.  The culture is at least partially the product of the incentives that the populace operates under.  For example, we subsidize single parenthood through AFDC and low and behold we get more of it.  We should ask what incentives could be changed to start to change the culture.  I have also been surveying some blogs that focus on culture for some of the answers.  I offer some ideas for your consideration.

Divorce.  The U.S. Census Bureau reports that children of divorce are more likely to live in poverty.  What causes divorce?  I don't know all of the reasons, but we know that divorce was less likely in times past.  Maybe the question we should be asking is what prevents divorce.  It turns out that the extent to which courts enforce alimony and child support increases the probability that a woman will seek divorce.  H/T Dalrock.  Dalrock points out that the authors of the study think this is a good thing, because it allows mothers to have more leverage over fathers in marriage.  Why this is good is not explicitly stated.  Any discussion of reducing the rate of divorce has to start with reducing the incentives, including alimony which typically goes to the woman, because woman tend to marry up.

Single Parenthood.  The divorce rules will also provide an incentive for men to avoid marriage as well.  The greater the potential financial penalty in a potential divorce, the less willing will men be to enter into marriage.  Given the average woman's desire to have offspring and the uncertainties of birth control and the lack of opprobrium surrounding extramarital sex, there are powerful incentives for men to avoid marriage.  Changing the ground rules in family court might help change these incentives.  Perhaps the old rules requiring a cause of action for divorce would apply if one of the aggrieved parties desired alimony or child support.  Flimsy reasons for divorce provided by supposedly Christian mommy-bloggers might not look so attractive if no child support or alimony were forthcoming.

Penalizing Marriage. The ACA encourages divorce because of the way that subsidies are tied to the poverty level.

Any married couple that earns more than 400 percent of the federal poverty level—that is $62,040—for a family of two earns too much for subsidies under Obamacare. "If you're over 400 percent of poverty, you're never eligible for premium" support, explains Gary Claxton, director of the Health Care Marketplace Project at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
But if that same couple lived together unmarried, they could earn up to $45,960 each—$91,920 total—and still be eligible for subsidies through the exchanges in New York state, where insurance is comparatively expensive and the state exchange was set up in such a way as to not provide lower rates for younger people. 

The tax code overall is mixed regarding penalties and bonuses for getting married.  Continuing to ensure that there is no penalty for marriage is helpful.

These are a few ideas that come to mind.  I am not so naive as to believe that economic incentives by themselves will change the culture, and surely not in the short term.  But I notice that people respond to incentives in the long run.

What You Should Be Reading

• If you want Christian perspective on culture that is not polluted by the screed of feminism, then try KTCat, Dalrock and Sunshine Mary.
• Dean is back, noting the falling U.S. economic freedom index.
• In a small blow for economic freedom, federal judges overturned ridiculous FCC rules on net neurality.
• The City Journal because it has excellent in depth policy discussion that will get you thinking.
• Legal Insurrection documents the administration's march towards Hugo Chavez style thugocracy, with its proposed rules to quash conservative groups' tax exempt status, while leaving leftists' untouched.

Mexican Vigilantes, the War on Drugs, and Gun Rights

Armed vigilantes are battling drug cartels in Mexico.  Business Insider has a great set of photos about recent events.

The WSJ also reported on the vigilantes successful take over of Neuva Italia, a small town in Michoacan.

Hundreds of armed vigilantes stormed a town in rural Mexico on Sunday morning, forcing out most of its local government, witnesses said, and declaring they were close to ousting a powerful drug cartel that has menaced the region.
The takeover occurred in the southern Mexican town of Nueva Italia and was led by one of the area's so-called self-defense groups: armed squads of vigilantes that are making fast gains in some areas against organized-crime groups that Mexico's security forces have failed to defeat.

The LA Times is reporting that the vigilantes are holding 11 local police in custody, whom they blame for collusion with the Knights Templar drug cartel.

Vigilantes in Nueva Italia say they are liberating the area from the cartels.

This has implications for U.S. policy.

First, our brain dead drug policies are partly to blame for the situation.  Legalization of marijuana and other drugs would vastly reduce the money available to the cartels to fund weapons buys.  I don't approve of abusing drugs, I just know that preventing drug abuse through police enforcement is a cure worse than the disease.

Second, the government is ineffective in Mexico at maintaining the law.  It must take high levels of fear and frustration to get ordinary people to turn to vigilantism to defeat criminal gangs.  This is one reason why citizens have an inherent right to possess firearms; you ultimately can't fully rely on government to protect you.  Governments the world over have failed to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

Third, the anarchy in Mexico doesn't bode well for our ability to maintain economic ties, which depend on a reasonable ability to cross the border with goods and services.  The worse the anarchy, the tougher we will end up making the border crossing.

What You Should Be Reading

• WC Varones details the disappointment of a few folks who are actually helped by the ACA and details more flaws in the system.
• Ari Fleischer rebuts Obama on the roots of income inequality.
• The latest polling on the San Diego Mayoral race; because electing a junior council member who was Filner's closest ally on the council would be a travesty.

Weekend Music Chill

Holidays are over, we are back at work.  Time to mellow out with The Wallflowers.

One Headlight.



Three Marlenas.



I especially like the pictures of Marlene Dietrich in the second video.

What You Should Be Reading

Dalrock on Feminism. I stumbled across a blog I really like, linked at right, Dalrock.  He blogs from a Christian male perspective and takes on even the modern church when needed.  I find his perspective refreshing.  I love the title of a recent post, Feminist are ugly.  (Although he could have titled it, Why feminists are ugly.) Essentially, feminists deny that women should show love through service to their families.  This withholding of love hurts the women it is supposed to help and turns them ugly.

The real reason feminists are ugly has nothing to do with their physical appearance. [But I notice that they are often physically ugly as well.]  Feminists are ugly because they are miserly with love.
. . .
Cooking is an act of love, an act of service to others.  It is an opportunity to care for others in a very fundamental way, to literally nourish them through the work of your own hands.  This is precisely what troubles the modern woman so much about cooking (or cleaning, or changing diapers).  Serving others in the mind of a feminist is an indignity, so cooking, cleaning, or any other act of service and love is the object of revulsion.

Spanish feminists urge banning of book urging wives to be submissive.

Author of said book, 'Cásate y sé sumisa, Constanza Miriano.

Dean on High Speed Choo-Choos. It seems that no court ruling, no amount of illegality can stop the spending when you are a beloved leftist program.

Oh, California high-speed choo-choos, we just can’t quit you as we are hopelessly addicted to wasteful and completely counterproductive public works projects. You keep this up and you just might supplant 2009’s $780 billion American Recovery Act aka Porkulus as #1 in our hearts.
The level of corruption, deception, mendacity and willful suspension of disbelief contained herein makes this probably a done deal.

The Popping of the College Bubble.  One of the least reported, but most important trends is that college is a bad deal for most students.  The college bubble has been far worse than the housing bubble.  The latest from the WSJ:

A college degree's declining value is even more pronounced for younger Americans. According to data collected by the College Board, for those in the 25-34 age range the differential between college graduate and high school graduate earnings fell 11% for men, to $18,303 from $20,623. The decline for women was an extraordinary 19.7%, to $14,868 from $18,525.
Meanwhile, the cost of college has increased 16.5% in 2012 dollars since 2006, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' higher education tuition-fee index.
. . .
We now have more college graduates working in retail than soldiers in the U.S. Army, and more janitors with bachelor's degrees than chemists.

What You Should Not Be Reading.

• Anything involving Dennis Rodman.
• Robert Gates' memoirs, because if he was so butt-hurt about Obama's mismanagement, he should have quit a lot sooner.