What You Should Know - Today's Supreme Court Decisions

The real action in today's Supreme Court rulings was not in the Hobby Lobby case. The Court struck down the idea that unions could extend their reach in Illinois personal health care assistants in a blow to the public employees' unions.  Because the case was decided on First Amendment grounds, the court signal that they may be willing to do away with all public employee union dues collection that goes to political purposes and may impose further limits in the future.  This could be a big blow for worker's freedom and a big drain on union coffers. See Eugene Volokh's superb analysis at Reason.

Meanwhile, the Hobby Lobby case was determined on narrow statutory grounds, not constitutional ones. The court ruled that Hobby Lobby had a right to not fund contraception under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, no free speech case here. That's not to say that there weren't important constitutional principles involved. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations can be considered persons for the purpose of guaranteeing constitutional protections. Ilya Somin helpfully explains at The Volokh Conspiracy.

What You Should Be Reading:

• Dalrock comments on the strange convergence of conservatives and feminists regarding marriage.  Preview: He doesn't think its good.
• KT helpfully explains the synergy between fascism and spending all of your country's cash.  
• And more in the continuing sage of police treating ordinary citizens as subjects, the Chief of Police in Salt Lake City gets annoyed that people are protesting one of his officers shooting a family dog.

Key Minimum Wage Facts

Half of all minimum wage earners are young people entering the work force (under 24).  Source: BLS.

In 2012, almost two-thirds of minimum wage workers (64.4%) were part-time workers. Source: BLS.

About 2.8% of all workers are paid at or below the minimum wage.  Over half of that number are paid below minimum wage. Source: BLS.

Of the 3.6 million people who earned at or below minimum wage in 2012, 2.0 million earned less than the minimum wage.  Source: BLS.
---Conclusion raising the minimum wage would only help 1.6 million or 1.2% of the workforce, because those making less than minimum wage are already operating outside of the law.

Of Course Drug Laws Have Racist Component

Rand Paul, speaking in Iowa, points out the fact that our nation's drug laws disproportionately target African-Americans and Hispanics.  From Media-ite:

Paul spoke out against the racial biases present in U.S. drug laws. “I think drugs are a scourge. I think we’ve maybe gone too far and that marijuana is a problem,” Paul said. “And yet I also think it’s a problem to lock people up for 10 and 15 and 20 years for youthful mistakes.”

The history of the origin of laws against marijuana show their explicitly racist origins.

The truth is that our perceptions of marijuana—and in fact all of our drug laws—are based on early 20th century racism and “science” circa the Jim Crow era. In the early decades of the 20th century, the drug was linked to Mexican immigrants and black jazzmen, who were seen as potentially dangerous. 

Harry Anslinger, the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (an early predecessor of the DEA), was one of the driving forces behind pot prohibition. He pushed it for explicitly racist reasons, saying, “Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men,” and:  

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

Good for Rand Paul for taking this on.  Now if Republicans would get serious about supporting charter schools and vouchers as well, they might make inroads with black and Hispanics.

Hard Truths About Minimum Wage - Who Should I Fire?

My income is fixed but decent, so I choose to employ maids and gardeners.  My choice results in extra coin in the pocket of people whom I know are not near as well off as myself.  The hard truth about a minimum wage increase of the size being contemplated by the San Diego City Council is that I can't really afford to continue to employ both.  So who should I fire, the maids or the gardeners?  This is the hard truth about the minimum wage.  My income is set by law, it's not going to change, so those are my choices to deal with rising costs.  Those arguing for the minimum wage will tell me that I am not paying those people enough, but when someone loses that income, I'll bet they would prefer that I still employed them.  Further, I won't be the only one making such a choice; some people are going to lose their jobs with a minimum wage hike.

The other hard fact is that the people who really need employment, the young, will be disproportionately shut out of the job market by a minimum wage rise.  From the BLS:

Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 21 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over. 

And from the Heritage foundation (also based on 2012 statistics):

The characteristics of the teenagers and young adults who earn the minimum wage or less support the notion that these minimum-wage workers rarely work to support children and their families:

• 79 percent work part-time jobs.
• 62 percent are enrolled in school during non-summer months.
• Their average family income is $65,900 per year.
• Only 22 percent live at or below the poverty line, while 68 percent enjoy family incomes over 150 percent of the poverty line, which is $33,500 for a family of four.[6]
• Most have not finished their education. A third have not yet finished high school, while almost a quarter have only a high school degree. Another two-fifths have taken college courses but have not yet graduated. Many of these are college students working part-time while in school. Only 3 percent have finished college and obtained a degree.

Only 3.7 million workers in the U.S. earn the minimum wage or less, which is about 2% of the workforce.  This doesn't do much about income inequality, if that is your current shibboleth.  This is a solution in search of a problem.

Finally, when we look at employment statistics, we find that the young are the ones suffering in the lack of growth in the economy:

Here is the civilian labor force participation rate for those over 55 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 greater for the younger age population. They are the ones leaving the work force; don't believe the lies that labor participation is down because baby boomers are retiring.  The old goats are hanging on to their jobs like the bitter clingers they are. 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 careers and learning skills.

You know what would really help lack of youth employment? Increasing the minimum wage to further disconnect their pay from their skill levels.

California Primary Results - San Diego

I am leaving early on a trip, but I am pretty pleased with the early returns in San Diego.  In Council District 2, Lorie Zapf seems to have a good chance at clearing the 50% threshold to avoid a run off in November.  Propositions B & C also appear headed for defeat, a huge victory for jobs in here in the city.  I live in the 52nd CA congressional district and it looks like a Peters (D) vs DeMaio (R) match up in November.  Peters is only showing 43% of the vote in early returns, against the Republicans seeking to replace him.  I don't think that bodes well for his November odds.

At the state level, it seems as though Kashkari will beat out Donnelly for the right to face Jerry Brown.  I am under no illusions that the Republican can take back the Governor's mansion, so my support, went to the man who was having an effective outreach and effectively hammering home Jerry Brown's support for the "Crazy Train" aka High Speed Choo-Choo.  Checking other results, I am amazed to see two Republicans in the lead for State Controller at this time, Ashley Swearingin and David Evans.  

Right now I am listening to Scott Peters giving a pretty lame defense of the Bergdahl deal today, but he backtracked with "I wasn't consulted and not sure if it was a good deal."

On the down side, Democrats are still in control of this state.  Also, I didn't vote for Bonnie Dumanis, but she may avoid a run off.  I don't know if Brewer would be so great, but her ethical challenges after 12 years in office deserve closer scrutiny. 

Propositions B & C in San Diego - Slow Death for Shipbuilding

With the June 3, primary election approaches, I want to touch on Propositions B and C which are not getting enough attention.  These propositions deserve a No vote, because they would codify the City Council's approval of a plan that would limit commercial zoning in Barrio Logan; and in my opinion start the slow strangulation of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry in San Diego.  Naturally, I am opposed.  The key issue is that the plan calls for a buffer between the current industrial area and the housing surrounding it.  However, this buffer will effectively drive out some of the businesses that are currently part of the shipbuilding ecosystem of the area.  From the U-T:

Shipyard leaders have expressed concern that the new plan could drive up suppliers’ costs, make San Diego less competitive and possibly prompt the Navy to contract ship building elsewhere.

Even the left-leaning VOSD acknowledges how the plan impacts shipbuilding related industry:

The major disagreement is over that dark purple band north of Harbor Drive. The plan makes it a place for commercial properties only — not industrial businesses or homes — so there would be a “buffer” between heavy industrial activity and residences. 

Right now, that’s home to companies that support the shipyards. Those companies could stay, but they’d have limited expansion options, and new companies trying to open there would need a special permit, which the community would have a say on.

Since businesses always come and go, the plan amounts to a long term path to squeeze industrial businesses out of the area north of Harbor Drive.  The linked article has some decent maps showing the impact.

The other argument on the No side is that it would put new homes near the I-5 causing health concerns for those residents.  I am not as concerned about this issue, as people can choose to live near freeways if they want.  My real concern is for jobs in this city.

Is my headline a bit of hyperbole? Sure, but so is the argument that this won't impact a job producing industry in the long run.  I am voting no on Propositions B & C.  There are quite a few retired admiral's who care about the Navy's presence in San Diego who agree with me.

Photo courtesy of No on B & C website.

Memorial Day Reflection - Socialized Medicine for Veterans

As we reflect on the service of Americans who gave their lives in war this Memorial Day, I also reflect on the care given those who sacrificed a great deal and must now depend upon the Veterans Administration to treat their service related injuries.  You can read for yourself about the scandal of longer and longer wait times; and the lying about those facts.  Boiled down to its essentials, the scandal is about rationing care through wait times and lying about rationing care and those same wait times.  Bernie Sanders, self avowed socialist and chair of the Senate VA committee, essentially admitted to the first part by saying that there weren't enough resources to provide care.  News flash - When the Government provides goods and services we always seem to run out.

This goes to the heart of the larger issue.  Democrats have always claimed they were the party you should elect to run government competently.  But the government has grown so vast and complex, it is impossible to do so.  Obama's surprise at finding each new scandal in his administration is almost understandable, given the federal government's vast size. But the solution must come from getting government smaller, and definitely shedding its role as direct provider of services.

With regards to veterans, we clearly need to provide them with insurance alternatives to allow them to make use of private sector medicine.  They deserve to be freed of the incompetent monopoly provisioning of health care by the federal government. John McCain has said that he will make such a proposal.  Count on the left to oppose this move.  They have touted the VA as a model for single payer in the past.  To allow out-sourcing would undermine their arguments for socialized medicine, as Krugman calls the VA system in the linked article.

Reason.com gives a great synopsis what passes for "success" in the VA's socialized medical system.

How could a bloated government bureaucracy achieve such low-cost success? As we found out recently, it's by quietly sticking veterans on a waiting list and putting off their treatment for months—sometimes until the patients are far too dead to need much in the way of expensive care. Which is to say, calling it a "success" is stretching the meaning of the word beyond recognition.

On this Memorial Day, although a time for reflection about those who have died; we should support the living veterans as well, by prising their health care from the monopoly of the federal government.

What You Should Be Reading

• KTCat equates moral relativism Houston Astro fandom.  Read it, it makes sense.
• Left Coast Rebel has great hashtag for Obama on the VA scandal.
• For Memorial Day, I am embedding one of the greatest speeches for the occasion ever given, by Ronald Reagan, of course. (The text of a different but great speech here.)

Weekend Music Chill

Since I haven't been blogging regularly, I have also not been posting weekend music.  This is a mistake.  One of my favorite bands from the 1970s was ELO; here is some of their lesser known work that I have always admired.  For some reason, I can't get an ELO channel to produce consistent results for a Pandora channel.

Kuiama



Here is the 10538 Overture, which seemed an appropriate ending tune for American Hustle, a film that I really liked.  Jennifer Lawrence pleasantly surprised in a supporting role.

Unions Fund Libertarian

. . . Campaign Flyer.  Who'd a thunk it?  This flyer showed up at my house.

Unions are getting involved in the San Diego City Council District 2 race and spending money to help the Libertarian candidate, Mark Schwartz. Let's be clear, Schwartz has no chance of being elected.

If you read the fine print at the bottom, you will see that the San Diego - Imperial Counties Labor Council sponsored this flyer, along with the city Municipal Employees Association.  When I saw this show up, I was immediately suspicious.  I was a libertarian for a long time, and slick campaign flyers were almost always outside of the budget wherewithal of our candidates.

Why would the unions fund Schwartz?  It is pretty obvious, in my opinion.  They are hoping to drain enough votes from Zapf to prevent her from winning the primary outright against Progressive darling Sarah Boot.  The unions want minimum wage increases, banning of managed competition and an end to pension reform, which puts them in opposition to Zapf.  Do they really want Schwartz elected?  Here is a little of what he says on his campaign website: "I will"

- Support free market economy and free enterprise locally by working to reduce tax burden and permitting costs to San Diego businesses.
- Champion cutting tax waste with privatization of city services (managed competition,) opening small businesses bid opportunities to fill city needs.
- Vote NO on any proposed ordinance that increases tax burden on citizens. I will speak out against any new propositions or bonds to be levied on the citizens that infringe on property rights and freedom.

No way do unions support these positions.  In fact, they are exactly the positions already taken by Zapf, only she has actually taken action.  For example, she personally collected signatures to rescind the linkage fee.  I just wanted to point out to readers that voting for Schwartz is essentially a vote for Sarah Boot and an endorsement of the union platform for city government.

What You Should Be Reading

• The WSJ has been documenting vast prosecutorial over reach in the suppression of the first amendment rights of groups to advocate for issues.  Their editorial pages documents the latest smack down of Democratic prosecutors in the Badger state. 
• Dalrock has an expert takedown of Ms. Obama's pouty faced hashtag photo.  You know the one.
• The mindless leftist idiocy, but I repeat myself, of commencement speaker protests is reviewed by Daniel Henninger in Bonfire of the Humanities.  Liberal Arts as a major is imploding, because no one wants to hire people whose sole education has been to repeat stupid (and untrue) slogans.  Even the mere presence of camels is considered racist on today's college campus.
• KTCat goes to New Jersey and discovers heteronorming patriarchal oppression among the Osprey population. (The birds, not the aircraft.)

Update From Bob Brewer Campaign on Handgun Issue

I asked the Bob Brewer for DA campaign what the candidate's position was with regards to Drake v Jerejian, which revolves around requirement by the state of New Jersey that permitted handgun owner show "justifiable need" to be issued a permit to carry in public.  I did so because one of my beefs with Bonnie Dumanis during her tenure as DA was signing an amicus brief asking the courts to deny an individual right to bear arms in Heller v District of Columbia.  Drake v Jerejian was being considered by the Supreme Court at the time I asked the question, but has the petition to hear the case was subsequently denied.  Regardless, here is Bob Brewer's campaign manager's (Alex Roth) response to my query:

After Heller and McDonald, we were not surprised to see the Supreme Court taking up Drake v. Jerejian.  We don’t believe that the District Attorney should be filing amicus briefs on the issue – like Bonnie Dumanis did in Heller when she filed an amicus brief supporting DC’s (thereafter overturned) ban on keeping firearms in the home for self-defense.  We can’t be certain of the ruling or scope of the Court’s review in Drake, and Peruta allowed individuals to have a CCW without “good cause.” Therefore, this is the current state of the law.  As District Attorney, Bob Brewer is committed to enforcing the law.

That is probably as good as I was going to get from an attorney running for public office.  I appreciate that he wouldn't file amicus briefs against 2nd amendment challenges.  Certainly the reference to Peruta v County of San Diego is good; still, I was hoping for a more robust defense of the 2nd amendment in the response; but certainly better than Dumanis.

Sarah Boot - Progressive?

Oh yeah, and by progressive, that means a person of the left as opposed to a mere SWPL-y person of pallor.

Sarah Boot is running against quasi-incumbent Lorie Zapf for San Diego City Council in District 2.  For full disclosure, recent redistricting moved my home from District 6 to District 2, like Zapf. I am very interested in this race. San Diego City Beat has this to say about Boot:

In 2010, she was selected as a fellow for the San Diego chapter of the New Leaders Council, which aims to train “progressive political entrepreneurs” for leadership roles, elected office among them. She’s also a founding member of Run Women Run, a local organization focused on getting politically progressive women in office. [emphasis mine.]

On her campaign web site, Boot promises to work for neighborhoods and public safety.  Both Mayor Faulconer, the former Council-member from the district, and Council-member Zapf made this a priority in their campaigns as well.  You have to go to her issues page to find the evidence of left-leaning tendencies.  Even what you find there is pretty mild.

I will work to provide all San Diegans with good paying jobs in industries of the future not dead end jobs of the past.  These are jobs in “green” industries such as alternative energy like solar and wind and retrofitting our public buildings and “blue” industries that take advantage of our port and ocean front maritime trades.  Whether its promoting “green” or “blue” technologies or championing our local biotech businesses, San Diego needs a city government that is forward thinking and uses our economic development dollars wisely.

But there is not a word about the key issues which have divided the city council of late, the minimum wage debate, the zoning in Bario Logan, pension reform, the hotel tax, linkage fees nor managed competition.  So a little research is in order.  By the way, green jobs are a myth.  I notice that the left has always had a tendency to hide their positions, but I digress.

On the issue of the linkage fee, dumbest tax ever, Boot made her support known in the OB town council debate.  Her stance on the linkage fee is disqualifying, in my opinion.  I can't find reference to Boot's stance on managed competition, although Zapf vigorously supported the concept in the PB and Clairemont forums.  On the issue of the minimum wage, Boot makes her progressive bona fides clear by supporting some sort of increase in an interview with Frank Gormlie in the OBRag. She also discusses the importance of climate disruption change (maybe she hadn't gotten the memo) and other progressive shibboleths.  In the same interview she exhibits hostility towards outsourcing, although not the same as managed competition, might certainly be an indicator.

If Sarah Boot is elected to the city council, we can expect major intrusions by city government and a very union friendly 6-3 Democrat majority on the council.  It means no to any more pension reform, managed competition or any other efforts to keep city costs under control.  Further, plastic bag bans, changes to how we get our electricity, raising minimum wages so my son can lose his job and general interference in our lives will be on its way.  I think Lorie Zapf has been great on the City Council, but even if she had been mediocre, I would still be endorsing her over Sarah Boot.

What You Should Be Reading

• Giving us hope for this generations of collegiate students, UNC Sophomore Timothy Bame writes about the myth of clean energy.  45% of the electricity generated in the United States is through the use of coal. It is also by far the cheapest form of electricity and the easiest to obtain, yet it remains in plentiful supply. (H/T College Insurrection).  I would add that the shift to natural gas has reduced carbon emissions by more than any "green" technology ever will.
• Meanwhile, despite repeated claims that we need all that solar and wind because of peak oil, America is on a path to achieve its highest rates of petroleum production, evah!  
• State Rep Joseph Gibbons of FL points out that California's net-metering policies are subsidizing solar power providers because they avoid paying for the electrical that they depend upon.  As someone who has recently received some quotes for solar, I worry that a change to a rationale policy for connecting to the grid will change my savings calculations.

San Diego District Attorney's Race - Can Brewer Close the Deal?

Bonnie Dumanis ran unopposed in her last run for District Attorney; this year she faces opponents Bob Brewer and Terri Wyatt. I am unhappy with Dumanis, but not ready to endorse an opponent.  First my airing of grievances against Dumanis.

• Prior to running for mayor, Dumanis had the opportunity to make her voice heard on Proposition D, the half-cent sales tax increase; she demurred.  Carl DeMaio's strong support stood in stark contrast and was a key element in my support for his mayoral bid.
• She joined an amicus brief against arguing against gun rights in DC v Heller. The argument presented was that we need to violate the 2nd amendment because it would harm our ability to prosecute gun related crime.  I have zero sympathy for that position.  Law enforcement that does not take seriously upholding citizen's rights while enforcing the law sets precedents for tyranny.
• Her prosecutions in the area of medical marijuana have not helped San Diego normalize this situation.  Further, her office claimed that a number of arrests were to protect military families when in fact they were medical marijuana patients.  Further, she appears vindictive in her attitude towards the "crime" of medical marijuana use.  I have been made aware by family members and by a doctor of how medical marijuana can be helpful to people suffering.

In short, Dumanis appears to act with disdain towards the subjects citizens who elected her.  In fact, she has held office for too long; it's not healthy.  In general, I believe in term limits.

Of Dumanis' challengers, I am less sympathetic to the candidacy of Terri Wyatt.  Her case is that she is a career prosecutor and not a politician.  So what?  The office is political.  It should respond to the people.  Part of the problem with Dumanis is her lengthy stay in office.  Why would I expect a career prosecutor to be any more sympathetic to my concerns over individual rights than Dumanis?

But I am also not overwhelmed by what I see with Bob Brewer. His first TV ad touts law enforcement endorsements; I find the endorsements of public employee unions to be a negative.  Bob Brewer is claiming that Dumanis' run for mayor in 2012 showed that she can no longer run the DA's office. I don't think that matters, unless he can show that this led to unethical behavior as DA.  His pledge not to make endorsements as DA is more salient.  The DA can easily be required to investigate the city attorney or mayor, and not having to recuse herself, as Dumanis had to with the Filner issues, would be a big plus.  Brewer accuses Dumanis of cronyism in her operation of the District Attorney's office.  This is hard to prove, although the U-T wasn't sympathetic early in her tenure. This issue with a researcher who endorsed a Dumanis opponent also looks fishy.

I am actually more sympathetic to Brewer's life experience as a Vietnam War veteran, prosecutor and then defense attorney.  His varied career, and the personal hardship he has overcome make me more confident in his judgement.

I am still doing more research before I endorse.

Our Inspiring Heritage - My DC Trip

The flagrancy of leftist tom-foolery, for which they feel no embarrassment, left me without the desire to blog for a while, because I don't like to blog angry, and there has been much to be angry about.  However, I just returned from Washington DC, and was inspired by the monuments and memorials that I saw.  In marble, granite and bronze we have memorialized the ideas and ideals that have made our country great; and by that I mean free, even when not rich; and aspiring to greater moral character, even when falling short of perfection. 

I believe the importance of increasing liberty in a time when it is decreasing.  In such times, the sights in DC reminded me of that perseverance in the cause of liberty is necessary for its triumph.  George Washington's history, on display in the National Museum of American History, reminded me of the willingness to make great sacrifice against long odds in the cause of liberty.  My favorite quote was from King George III:

When King George III heard Washington would resign his commission to a powerless Congress, he told the painter Benjamin West: “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

He did so because he believed more in the cause he served than in himself.  Today, we need such leaders in the liberty movement, but certainly our cause is more likely to give rise to such men and women than leftism and socialism. 

At the Iwo Jima memorial, I marveled at what moved very ordinary men to risk their lives hoisting our country's flag.  Half of the six would later die on that island.  Our country still produces such heroes.

When our imperfect country could not come to grips with the evil of slavery, Lincoln explained why war was necessary to preserve the Union.  There are those who have argued that secession might be a right of the states under a legal reading of the constitution, but Lincoln made clear that a secession to perpetuate an evil that had been intended by the framers not to endure, was illegitimate. 

I also visited the crypt of John Paul Jones. Here was a man who adopted our cause as his own, even thought he was a Scotsman and therefore a British citizen.  I am convinced that the call to resist tyranny will continue be attractive to men of character even into our age.  It was fitting that Theodore Roosevelt ordered a state funeral for him when his body was returned to the United States.

Photo courtesy of U.S. Naval Academy.

I don't intend a travelogue of my visit, I just wanted to share that I was inspired.  A trip to Washington in April is certainly good for the soul.

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.