Utah and Wyoming support Montana's Right to Regulate Guns produced within its borders

From the AP:

State officials in Wyoming and Utah plan to enter a lawsuit pending in Montana to argue the federal government lacks authority to regulate firearms that are made and sold in the same state.

The attorneys general of Wyoming and Utah say they plan to file a brief in the Montana case this week. It's possible other states may sign on as well.

The states involved have adopted "firearms freedom" laws that seek to exempt guns manufactured and sold in the same state from federal regulations.

In Montana, pro-gun groups sued the federal government last year over its contention that federal guns laws still apply despite the state law.

The U.S. Department of Justice argues Montana lacked authority to exempt guns from national gun control laws.

Can teachers read? This one sure can't

I wonder whether teachers can read (or at least comprehend what they say they have read) after seeing something like this.

The plan would base teacher pay raises primarily on student learning gains on standardized tests, such as the FCAT, and eliminate tenure job protections for teachers hired after July. . . .

Helping sway Crist on the tenure bill: teachers like Marie Angel Welsh, who teaches at Nova Middle School in Broward and was among dozens of teachers to testify against the tenure bill in Tallahassee this week. She told legislators she's taught at high-scoring and low-scoring schools, and teachers were "no less talented" at the latter. . . .

The point of the bill isn't to pay teachers based on the level of student test scores, but on the change in test scores.

It is another question whether teacher salaries should be based on how good of a job they do as opposed to how many years that they have taught, but personally I find it hard to believe that you really want to pay any worker based on years at the job and the number of training classes on takes. The fact that Charlie Crist is vacillating on signing this bill probably tells most people all they need to know about Crist in his primary race against Marco Rubio.

Greenspan finally blames Congress for pressure to make bad loans

Why so long to make this argument? I could speculate that he thought that they would go easy on him if he didn't go after them.

Mr. Greenspan sought to lay blame for the crisis on international economic forces that were pouring money into the U.S. real-estate market, as well as on domestic political pressures to boost homeownership.

He singled out the congressionally chartered mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were major consumers of subprime mortgages. Republicans on the commission, particularly former Bush administration adviser Keith Hennessey, echoed that concern.

Mr. Greenspan suggested that Fed critics have lost sight of the political atmosphere that prevailed at the time. "I mean, I sat through meeting after meeting in which the pressures on the Federal Reserve—and on, I might add, all of the other regulatory agencies—to enhance lending were remarkable." . . .

Greenspan: "While the roots of the crisis were global, it was securitized US subprime mortgages that served as the crisis' immediate trigger. The surge in demand for mortgage back securities was heavily driven by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which were pressed by the Dept of Housing and Urban development and the Congress to expand affordable housing commitments."

Obama Economic Adviser Pushes National Sales Tax

What was that promise not to raise taxes on people making less that $250,000 per year? From Fox News:

Acknowledging it would be a highly unpopular move, White House economic adviser Paul Volcker said yesterday the United States should consider imposing a "value added tax" similar to those charged in Europe to help get the deficit under control.

A VAT is a national sales tax that, like state and city sales taxes, would be collected by retailers.

Volcker, at the New-York Historical Society, told a panel on the global financial crisis that Congress might also have to consider new taxes on carbon and energy.

The VAT suggestion was immediately met with outrage by Republicans.

"It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Obama White House would advocate a European-style tax to help finance their European-style government health-care plan," said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. . . .

18 states now ask courts to strike down government health care law

Given that most state Attorneys General and/or Governors are Democrats, there is a limit to how many states will do this, but this number is encouraging. When the case gets to the Supreme Court it will be interesting to see how many states will openly support the government health care bill. My guess is that it is a lot easier to do nothing than it is to actively support it.

The joint lawsuit led by Florida and now grouping 18 states was filed on March 23. It claims the sweeping reform of the $2.5 trillion healthcare system violates state-government rights in the U.S. Constitution and will force massive new spending on hard-pressed state governments.

South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, and South Dakota had previously joined Florida's lawsuit.

"We welcome the partnership of Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona as we continue fighting to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens and the sovereignty of our states," Bill McCollum said.

The lawsuit says the health overhaul law -- which expands government health plans for the poor, imposes new taxes on the wealthy and requires insurers to cover people with preexisting medical conditions -- violates the Constitution's commerce clause by requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance. . . .

How big is the US government?

How much money does it take for governments to do their job? This table compares per capita total government expenditures at all levels in different countries using purchasing power parity so as to ensure that each dollar has the same purchasing power in each country. Out of 175 countries, the US places 9th highest. This doesn't quite fit the notion of limited government that the US was founded on. Removing military expenditures only moves the US's rank down to 12th.

Breaking campaign promises about taxes yet again

How many times during the presidential campaign did Obama promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000? Those people were not supposed to see any of their taxes go up. Of course, the government health care bill was filled with taxes that will be paid by people at all income levels. Now under the notion that if you have broken a promise ten times already, why not break it a few more times?

The Obama administration has a plan to expand online innovation and boost national public safety. And it wants to do it with more taxes and higher fees.

The massive national broadband plan the Federal Communications Commission released last month proposes creating a national framework for the taxation of digital goods and services and imposing a fee to establish and maintain a national public safety wireless broadband network.

The FCC says the national tax would eliminate the headaches that come with varying state and local taxes on digital goods and services. And the public safety network would help avoid the communication failures among first responders to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

But the proposals are already drawing fierce criticism.

"Americans already suffering from a recession prolonged by Mr. Obama's policies are being asked to concur that raising – yes, raising – taxes on a nationwide basis will somehow 'reduce uncertainty and remove one barrier to online entrepreneurship and investment,'" Timothy Lee, vice president of legal and public affairs for the Center for Individual Freedom, wrote in an opinion article published in the Washington Times. . . .

"Homeowner Killed Armed Assailant During Break-In, Police Say"

From WBAL TV:

BALTIMORE COUNTY, Md. -- A suspected burglar who was shot to death by the owner of the home he had broken into had served several years in prison.
Police said Marvin Cook Jr., 29, entered a house in the 4200 block of Chapel Road in Perry Hall at about 6:30 a.m. Sunday and pointed a handgun at 68-year-old William Bozman, who was asleep in his bed.
"He ordered Bozman to give him money. Mr. Bozman was able to get out of bed quickly and retrieve his own handgun and ordered the suspect to drop his handgun," said Cpl. Mike Hill of the Baltimore County police.
Officials said Cook advanced toward Bozman and, fearing for his life, Bozman fired several shots.
Hill said Cook continued toward Bozman and actually fell on top of the homeowner after being shot. Hill said Bozman was able to get up and call police. Bozman has not been charged with a crime.
Cook died at Franklin Square Hospital. . . .

Thanks to Robert Borden for the link.

Goodwin Liu "anti-gun" nominee that Obama wants to be a Federal Appeals Court Judge

Nominees such as this will undo the whatever protections that the recent Supreme Court decisions have acknowledged.

Imagine a judicial candidate that is so far to the left that even Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, is hesitant to push him forward.

Imagine a liberal law professor that not only fails to meet the ABA's basic requirements for a federal judge, but is so green behind the ears that it appears the only reason he is being nominated to the federal courts is because he served as part of President Obama's transition team. . . .

a law journal article of Liu's where he criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring two gun control laws as unconstitutional -- the Brady Law's unfunded mandate and the Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Liu said that Supreme Court cases like these did "damage" to civil rights and "upset settled understandings of congressional power." What?! Striking down gun control laws does damage to civil rights? Well, let's be clear: the Court did upset someone's "settled" understanding of things, but it was the LIBERAL'S misunderstanding of the Constitution.

By the way, Liu co-authored the 2002 law journal article with then-Senator Hillary Clinton . . .

Goodwin Liu left out information on over 117 speeches, publications, and other materials from his judicial nomination materials

This appears to be an unprecedented attempt by a judicial nominee to hide his record.

Senate Republicans on Tuesday slammed one of the Obama administration's most controversial judicial nominees for failing to initially disclose more than 100 of his speeches, publications and other background materials -- an omission the Republicans called unprecedented and a possible attempt to "hide his most controversial work."

They said Goodwin Liu's nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is in "jeopardy" in light of the problem.

The complaint came after Liu, a Berkeley law professor, gave the Senate Judiciary Committee a bundle of supplemental material that contained 117 things he left out after his February nomination.

Among the items disclosed were several speeches on affirmative action and his participation at an event co-sponsored by the Center for Social Justice at Berkeley and the the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group.

In response to the new information, all seven Republicans on the Judiciary Committee fired off a letter to its chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., demanding that Liu's hearing be postponed again.

Liu's hearing already has been postponed twice, and Republicans have mounted somewhat of a campaign against him -- targeting him for his writings suggesting health care is a right and describing the Constitution as a document that should adapt to changes in the world.

The omissions didn't help his case.

"At best, this nominee's extraordinary disregard for the committee's constitutional role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the committee," the Republicans wrote in the letter to Leahy Tuesday. "Professor Liu's unwillingness to take seriously his obligation to complete these basic forms is potentially disqualifying and has placed his nomination in jeopardy."

The letter said Liu only provided the extra material after committee staff had found a number of omissions in the packet he gave up front.

"These are not minor omissions," the letter said. . . .

New Washington Times piece

My latest pieces from the Washington Times.

Close enough for government work: The EPA and Energy Department are caught fudging efficiency

Obama eyes interns: Democrats move to deny useful job training to young workers

Media Matters blows it again on describing whether congressional staff are covered by parts of health care bill

Media Matters claims: "Media falsely claim Obama and staff are 'exempt' from health care reform"

1) Politico and Roll Call and other publications did not claim that all congressional staff were exempt. What they reported was a discussion by the Congressional Research Service that some parts of the congressional staff were exempt. Media Matters quotes the text of the bill saying: "The term ''congressional staff'' means all full-time and parttime employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC." The problem is that "the official office" doesn't cover all the congressional staff.

As I wrote in my piece for Fox News: "the Congressional Research Service memo believes that courts will not require “professional committee staff, joint committee staff, some shared staff, as well as potentially those staff employed by leadership offices” to go through the exchanges. President Obama and his family are also exempt from the law."

My reading of the media was that they were discussing whether these staff were covered by the state exchanges.

2) Then Media Matters goes on to claim that this provision was inserted by Republican members of Congress. There appears to be some debate on this, but where ever the truth lay on that, one thing is clear: the Republicans put forward amendments to ensure that all congressional staff would have to abide by the health care regulations and Democrats voted down that amendment. At first the explanation was that the Senate wanted to keep the bill clean because they didn't want to make the House vote again on the bill. By even after it turned out that the reconciliation bill would be changed by the Senate and a House revote was necessary, no amendment was made to "fix" the bill. This would seem to imply that the Democrats, not Republicans, liked the wording the way it was.

Obama throws the opening pitch very poorly

This guy is just too cute. Wearing a White Sox baseball hat so that they can blame the boos on the hat, but it is hard to see any change in boos after he pulls out the hat.

Here is a picture from the All Star game last year. Obama declined an invitation to throw out the opening day pitch for the Nationals last year.

Obama is a diehard White Sox fan.

The first fan was interviewed during the game's television broadcast by former Sox pitcher Rob Dibble, who asked the president about his favorite players on the South Side growing up.

This is was the point that the usually eloquent Obama began stammering.

Obama: "I want the Nats to do well. I love them, but I am a South side kid. . . ."

Dibble: "Who was one of your favorite White Sox players growing up?"

Obama: "You know uh ..... I ... I thought that ... uh .... you know ... The truth is a lot of the Cubs I like too! But, uh ... I did not become a Sox fan until I moved to Chicago. Because I uh .... I was growing up in Hawaii so I ended up actually being an Oakland A's fan. But when I moved to Chicago I was living close to what was then Cominskey Park and went to a couple of games and just fell in love. And the nice thing about the Sox's is that it is real blue collar baseball."

"California lawmaker would outlaw 'open carry' gun right"

More talk about things that might go wrong rather than giving actual examples. From the Christian Science Monitor:

A California lawmaker has stepped into a growing gun rights debate by introducing legislation that would essentially outlaw what's called the "open carry" of unloaded weapons on public property.

The measure, which was first introduced last month but is not expected to have its first hearing until April, is meant to address the growing “open carry” movement, in which some gun owners have taken to meeting in coffee shops, parks, and restaurants while wearing holstered weapons to raise awareness about gun rights.

“People should be free from the fear and the potential for violence firearms represent,” said Democratic Assembly Member Lori Saldaña of San Diego, in a statement. “These displays of firearms can create potentially dangerous situations.” . . .

A copy of the bill is available here:

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 1934, as introduced, Saldana. Firearms.
Existing law generally regulates firearms transfers, including the use of a register in connection with sales, as specified.
This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to those provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 12075 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
12075. The State Printer upon issuing a register shall forward to the Department of Justice the name and business address of the dealer together with the series and sheet numbers of the register. The register shall not be transferable. If the dealer moves his or her business to a different location he or she shall notify the department of such that fact in writing within 48 hours.

Obama starts $21 MILLION loan program for small businesses

The government will be involved in determining the businesses that deserve this money. But it is so trivial. This is worth significant news coverage?

In March 2009, President Obama vowed to address the drought of bank lending to small companies and announced an initiative to use $15 billion from the federal bailout to unfreeze the markets that finance Small Business Administration loans.

More than a year later, the program was finally launched -- as a $21 million effort.

The program is one of several small-business lending initiatives developed by the administration that have struggled to get off the ground. Meanwhile, lending to these companies has fallen. Federal data show that lending to small businesses by community banks declined by about $8 billion, or 2 percent, between September 2008 and September 2009.

Administration officials say helping small businesses get credit remains a top priority. It is a critical component of the strategy to address the nation's high unemployment. More than half of all U.S. workers are at companies with fewer than 50 employees. Without access to loans, many of these firms are laying off workers or shutting their doors altogether.

Obama's economic team has put forward several major programs to increase small-business lending.

The first, unveiled in March 2009, focused on helping the SBA get loans into the hands of small businesses. This initiative proposed spending $15 billion to aid the markets that provide the financing for SBA loans. But in the months after the government's announcement, these markets recovered on their own, administration officials say. As a result, there was no need for a more expensive program.

Officials at the Treasury Department decided to launch a tiny $21 million pilot version of the program last month, just in case SBA lending falls back into turmoil. If that happens, the Treasury could easily ramp up the initiative now that it is operational, officials said. . . .

Stupak offers strange explanation for this health care vote

From the WSJ's Political Diary:

Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak is paying a price among his pro-life backers for throwing his support behind ObamaCare. He famously agreed to vote for the health-care bill only after the White House issued an executive order barring any federal funding for abortion -- an order so weak some pro-choice liberals promptly exulted that it couldn't pass legal muster.

Trying to shore up his wavering support, Mr. Stupak recently defended his vote to the Catholic News Agency, saying the legislation would have passed anyway because Speaker Nancy Pelosi "always carries a number of votes in her pocket." He further explained that, by voting "yes," he had allowed other more vulnerable congressmen to vote "no." "I had a number of members who thanked us after because they could vote no," Mr. Stupak said. . . .

See also this.

Obama administration's pirate program: catch and release

This doesn't seem like a very well-thought out policy. If we are going to release the pirates if the country of the attacked ship doesn't want to prosecute,

A U.S. Navy ship has sunk a pirate "mother ship" in the Indian Ocean and captured 11 pirates, and then promptly let them go.

It was the second time within 24 hours that U.S. forces captured Somali pirates. Earlier Thursday, five pirates were taken into custody after they attacked a U.S. warship.

While those five pirates remain in custody, the 11 captured Thursday were allowed to leave in small skiffs after the mother ship was sunk. The action prompted a Pentagon spokesman to deny that the Navy had a "catch and release" policy regarding pirates.

A Naval official told ABC News that the practice of releasing pirates is not unheard of. While piracy is illegal according to international maritime law, it is considered a criminal issue, not a national security one.

If the country of the attacked ship does not want to prosecute the pirates, and if Kenya, which has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Naval forces, does not agree to prosecute them, there are few options as to where the suspected pirates can be held and tried.

The latest confrontation occurred when pirates on three skiffs tried to hijack the Sierra Leone-flagged commercial ship MV Evita using rocket propelled grenades and rifle fire. . . .

"Indiana Attorney General Joins Health Care Fray"

Why Doesn't Obama acknowledge his White Heritage?

This is pretty strange. I guess that I don't understand why this is such a struggle. It also indicates to me a certain anger against whites that he won't even acknowledge his heritage. Is he worried that his black base will be upset if he acknowledges that he is half white? Why can't he even try bringing people together on this issue of race? Presumably it would be even more difficult for his children, though if a typical child were one-quarter asian or American Indian or I presume black, the child would be listed as having that racial background.

He may be the world's foremost mixed-race leader, but when it came to the official government head count, President Barack Obama gave only one answer to the question about his ethnic background: African-American.

The White House confirmed Friday that Obama did not check multiple boxes on his U.S. Census form, or choose the option that allows him to elaborate on his racial heritage. He ticked the box that says "Black, African Am., or Negro."

Obama filled out the form on Monday, supplying information for himself, first lady Michelle Obama and their daughters Malia and Sasha, as well as for Mrs. Obama's mother, Marian Robinson, who lives with the family in the White House.

For Obama, whose mother Ann Dunham, a white woman from Kansas, married his father, Kenyan native Barack Obama Sr., the question of his racial identity has been a lifelong struggle. His first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," is an account of a difficult journey of discovery. . . .

Pre-viewing Obama Government Health Care

So how have the pre-existing condition rules worked out in Massachusetts? I have pointed out multiple times how the CBO estimates have completely ignored the impact of changing pre-existing condition rules (not one mention of them in any report).

Thousands of consumers are gaming Massachusetts’ 2006 health insurance law by buying insurance when they need to cover pricey medical care, such as fertility treatments and knee surgery, and then swiftly dropping coverage, a practice that insurance executives say is driving up costs for other people and small businesses.

In 2009 alone, 936 people signed up for coverage with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts for three months or less and ran up claims of more than $1,000 per month while in the plan. Their medical spending while insured was more than four times the average for consumers who buy coverage on their own and retain it in a normal fashion, according to data the state’s largest private insurer provided the Globe. . . .

Some really disturbingly large marginal tax increases in the Tax Code

Why does Obama need the power to take over state National Guards whenever he wants?

Up until now a president could only takeover a state's national guard during a time of war, isn't it a big change to say that the President can now take over the national guards at any time? Why is that part of the health care bill?
The constitution limits funding the military to two years at a time. This legislation sets up a domestic military that can be funded at four years at a time.
Judge Napolitano asks: Why do doctors in this new division that is being set up need to have uniforms and guns?

Palin summarizing Obama's Government Health Care Plan: How many other Republican politicians would say this?

Sarah Palin on Obama's health care plan. Time magazine adds in the editorializing with the word "taunted."

"I see Fidel Castro likes Obamacare, and we don't," she taunted. "Doesn't that tell you something?"

Info on Justices Stevens and Ginsburg

Pancreatic cancer is very bad: "The overall five-year relative survival rate for 1995-2001 was 4.6 percent." From Fox News:

Stevens is the second-oldest justice in the court's history, after Oliver Wendell Holmes. He is the seventh-longest-serving justice, with more than 34 years on the court.

Another liberal, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, had surgery last year for early-stage pancreatic cancer. While Ginsburg has been her usual energetic self, including frequent speaking engagements and a teaching stint in Europe, long-term survival rates for pancreatic cancer are low.

Ginsburg, 77, has said she intends to serve into her early 80s, and she has hired her clerks for the court term that begins in October 2010. . . .

Are people's political views changing this much over their lifetimes?

There is a very interesting post at OKCupid.com about how people's views supposedly change over their lifetimes. There might indeed be something to this, but I would have to see the data broken down differently before I believe it. We know that people raised in different eras have different political views. People who came of age during the 1980s tend to be more conservative than those who did so during the 1960s. The data in the above diagram is from a purely cross-sectional survey. What you really need to do is follow people over time, obviously a long period of time if you want a graph like the above one. For example, are people in their 60s more economically liberal because of their age or because they came of age in the 1960s or is it both? I suspect it is both, though I don't know how important the different factors are. If it is both, the figure above will tend to exaggerate the changes over time in a person's views.

Obama's 17 minute answer to whether there are taxes in the Health Care bill

Even the Washington Post was tough: "He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze." Of course, Obama filled his discussion with lots of buzz words and inaccurate claims.

Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a "wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care" package.

"We are over-taxed as it is," Doris said bluntly.

Obama started out feisty. "Well, let's talk about that, because this is an area where there's been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I'm going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have," the president said.

He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze. His discursive answer - more than 2,500 words long -- wandered from topic to topic, including commentary on the deficit, pay-as-you-go rules passed by Congress, Congressional Budget Office reports on Medicare waste, COBRA coverage, the Recovery Act and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (he referred to this last item by its inside-the-Beltway name, "F-Map"). He talked about the notion of eliminating foreign aid (not worth it, he said). He invoked Warren Buffett, earmarks and the payroll tax that funds Medicare (referring to it, in fluent Washington lingo, as "FICA"). . . .

Oklahoma man shoots man who broke into his home

This incident occurred in Tulsa County, Oklahoma:

The incident happened at a home in the 6000 block of North Owasso just after 10 p.m.

According to Tulsa County sheriff's deputies, a couple was entering the home through the back door when they heard a noise in the master bedroom.

Deputies say the homeowner went to the bedroom and confronted the intruder.

"He walked in until he got close to the master bedroom, at that time he saw a burglar in the house, the burglar was carrying a sword that belonged to a homeowner, approached the homeowner, the homeowner told him to stop, pulled out his gun, guy didn't stop, and shot him," said TCSO Captain John Bowman.

Bowman says the intruder then reached for a gun in his pocket, so the homeowner fired two more shots, striking the man in the chest, killing him.

Detectives from the sheriff's office found Tiffey dead in a hallway of the home, and besides the sword by his side, say he did have other weapons with him.

"He had a .38 caliber handgun in his pocket, he had the homeowners 9mm handgun, a stun gun and a knife," said Sgt. Shannon Clark, Tulsa County Sheriff's Office. . . .

Can anyone count how many times Obama promised a tax cut for those making less than $250,000 per year, and that there would be no tax increases

This is yet another broken promise from Obama. When will the media start viewing this guy as having no mandate for the policies that he is pushing?

Cap and trade is the tax that dare not speak its name, and Democrats are hoping in particular that no one notices who would pay for their climate ambitions. With President Obama depending on vast new carbon revenues in his budget and Congress promising a bill by May, perhaps Americans would like to know the deeply unequal ways that climate costs would be distributed across regions and income groups.

Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing "polluters," not workers. Hardly. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity -- in this case the right to emit carbon -- and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. Stating the obvious, Peter Orszag -- now Mr. Obama's budget director -- told Congress last year that "Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program."

Hit hardest would be the "95% of working families" Mr. Obama keeps mentioning, usually omitting that his no-new-taxes pledge comes with the caveat "unless you use energy." Putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle-income households spend more of their paychecks on things like gas to drive to work, groceries or home heating.

The Congressional Budget Office -- Mr. Orszag's former roost -- estimates that the price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. That's about $680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of income. The rich would pay 1.7%. Cap and trade is the ideal policy for every Beltway analyst who thinks the tax code is too progressive (all five of them). . . .

Football Player accidentally carries concealed handgun into airport

It would be nice if people used some intelligence in enforcing these laws. Someone accidentally carries a gun with them and no harm is done. It would be nice if some perspective was used in enforcement.

Cleveland Browns nose tackle Shaun Rogers pleaded not guilty to a concealed weapons charge after authorities say he tried to carry a loaded handgun through airport security in a carry-on bag.

Rogers' attorney, Patrick D'Angelo, says his client entered the plea Saturday in Cleveland Municipal Court. The charge carries a maximum penalty of 18 months in prison.

The 31-year-old apologized to his fans and his team Friday after spending a night in jail, saying he didn't mean to take the gun into Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.

Rogers told police he forgot the gun was in his bag when he attempted to fly to Texas on Thursday.

D'Angelo says Rogers planned to fly to Houston later Saturday to spend Easter with family and will make sure "to check everything."

Government "do good" will eliminate a lot of internships

No one is forcing these young people to do internships. They get training and experience in jobs that they very frequently love. My kids have done internships that they wouldn't have had a chance at otherwise. Raise the price to the companies that provide these internships, and you reduce the demand for interns. When a young person works in an internship for just a few months, there is usually not a lot that a company gets out of these young people. The government warns: "Growth of Unpaid Internships May Be Illegal."

With job openings scarce for young people, the number of unpaid internships has climbed in recent years, leading federal and state regulators to worry that more employers are illegally using such internships for free labor.

Convinced that many unpaid internships violate minimum wage laws, officials in Oregon, California and other states have begun investigations and fined employers. Last year, M. Patricia Smith, then New York’s labor commissioner, ordered investigations into several firms’ internships. Now, as the federal Labor Department’s top law enforcement official, she and the wage and hour division are stepping up enforcement nationwide.

Many regulators say that violations are widespread, but that it is unusually hard to mount a major enforcement effort because interns are often afraid to file complaints. Many fear they will become known as troublemakers in their chosen field, endangering their chances with a potential future employer.

The Labor Department says it is cracking down on firms that fail to pay interns properly and expanding efforts to educate companies, colleges and students on the law regarding internships. . . .

Palin's Show Does Well in the Ratings

Possibly Palin's numbers are artificially high because people wanted to tune in the first time just to see what the show was like, but she beat out of Glenn Beck.

Is Apple pulling away from Android?

Where do developers think that the mobile smart phone market is going? After all, they might have the most accurate guesses since they have their money on the line. This new report from Flurry shows that Android and Blackberry are in for a tough battle, though I don't think that Flurry's conclusion that "In short, more developers are building more apps" quite gets the full effect. First one thing that needs to be understood is that the market is growing so Android's 10 percent over the past 60 days actually represents more development than the 18 percent in 2009. That said, I think that the best comparison is to compare the relative ratios. In 2009, iPhone development is 4.3 times greater than for Android. Over the past 60 days, that ratio is now 6.7 times. That is a 56 percent growth in Apple's relative share of developers.

If you include iPhone and iPad together, the ration rises to 8.9 times. Going from 4.3 to 8.9 times is a doubling of Apple's relative share. Given that iPad and iPhones have very similar operating system, it seems reasonable to add them together. But whether it is iPhone or iPhone plus iPad, Apple is pulling away from Android.

Meanwhile, if things are looking difficult for Android, Apple is crushing Blackberry. In 2009, Apple's share was 19.5 times the share for Blackberry. Over the past 60 days, it was 67 times greater. Obviously, if you include iPad, the change is even more lopsided.

Possibly developers had already accurately guessed iPad's strong sales. But headlines such as USA Today saying "Could iPad be sold out by early afternoon Saturday?", this looks like the perfect set up to snowball further.

The EPA's new global warming regulations

From Fox News:

The battle over global warming escalated this week with the Environmental Protection Agency issuing its first rules ever on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions even as more states lined up to legally challenge the new regulations.

On Thursday, the heads of the Transportation Department and the EPA signed final rules setting fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012-2016, with a goal of achieving by 2016 the equivalent of 35.5 miles per gallon combined for cars and trucks, an increase of nearly 10 mpg over current standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The rules come after 12 states joined petitions filed by Virginia, Alabama and Texas against the EPA for ruling in December that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide endanger human health -- a ruling that cleared the path for the agency to start issuing mandatory regulations to reduce them.

"While we made the decision to intervene based on what was in the best interests of Virginia and her citizens, it is gratifying to have the support of so many other states," Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli said recently in a written statement.

The lawsuit seeks to force the EPA to reopen hearings on its December finding or block the regulations. . . .

Note how Democrats often don't even try to explain why the government health care bill is constitutional

Congressman Phil Hare is a Democrat from Illinois' 17th district (western Illinois that borders Iowa and Missouri and from Davenport, Iowa to St. Louis).

OK, he says that the above discussions, despite being three minutes long, was taken out of context. The discussion takes place starting at 0:52 into the tape. So here is his answer now about why the government health care bill is constitutional.

The congressman control the video this time and besides saying that the constitution is important to him, he makes no attempt at explaining why the bill is constitutional.

By the way, if he did read the Senate bill three times (assuming that this doesn't include the reconciliation part of the legislation), that is indeed 8,100 pages. If he read it at a page a minute (doubtful that it could be anywhere near that fast given the dense legal language at places and some time to understand what was begin read) and he did it for eight hours a day, that would take 16.9 days. If it took two minutes a page, that is 33.75 days of doing nothing else for those eight hours a day. One can judge for themselves about the congressman's claim about reading the bill.

Obama's versus Bush's deficits

Note that even the CBO is run by Democrats. The graph is from the Washington Post. My son, Maxim, put together this second graph for John Stossel. The Heritage Foundation has this discussion.

Do Dems have the votes to push through more government financial regulations?

The quite left wing Talking Points Memo talks about how cocky Dems are about getting this passed.

This confidence manifests itself in many ways.

Congressional Dems are taunting Republicans, daring them to stand in the way.

"They need to be reminded that actions have consequences," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has said the whole thing could be over by May. And in at least one private meeting, President Obama has let it be known that he doesn't want the legislation to become terribly watered down in the Senate--and thinks that's a reasonable goal.

The House has passed its version of the legislation, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd has drafted a package of his own, and all Democrats have to do at this point is peel off one or two Republicans make a few tweaks and bring the thing up for a vote, right? . . .

The same piece however notes that things might not be so easy.

A number of Republicans have predicted that a bill will pass the Senate, but thus far, not a single one of them has indicated that they'll break with their party and help Democrats pass the bill they want. In fact, experts and consultants say Republicans will almost certainly stand together to block a bill unless one element of the bill--the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency--is scaled back. At the very least.

Right now, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd is sounding out his Republican counterpart Richard Shelby to see if he can reach an agreement on a compromise bill that has guaranteed Republican support. But bipartisan negotiations have broken down repeatedly on this issue in the past several months, and much of the good will is gone.

If the two parties can't reach agreement, Democrats and Republicans will find themselves in a game of chicken over a politically charged issue, with Democrats insisting Republicans are standing with bankers to block Wall Street reform, hoping that enough moderates join them to break a filibuster. . . .

New Fox News piece: Unemployment Numbers Are a Mixed Bag

My new piece starts this way:

The new unemployment numbers released today are decidedly mixed news. On the one hand, the unemployment rate remained constant at 9.7 percent in March and the share of the workforce taking part-time jobs because they couldn't find full time unemployment rose by a tenth of the percentage point.

For the second straight month, the broadest measure of unemployment rose, this time to 16.9 percent. This measure includes people who have left the labor force because they can't find a job as well as part-time workers who couldn't find a full-time job.

On the other hand, the Bureau of Labor Statistics survey of households shows that 264,000 people got jobs. Yet, the number unemployed also rose by 134,000. So how can you have both more people getting jobs and being unemployed? There is a simple reason for it. Over the last year, a lot of workers got discouraged, stopped looking for a job, and were no longer counted as being in the labor force. . . .

UPDATE: Apparently, the Census only hired 48,000 of the 100,000 they were supposed to hire in March. That implies a significant built in increase for next month in the number of people working for the government. It there hadn't been that 48,000 job increase, the number of government jobs would have declined by about 10,000. These are short term jobs, and it will be interesting to see what happens when they end.

Some other info on unemployment is here.

"Feds Approving Bogus Products as 'Energy-Efficient,' Investigation Finds"

This is pretty funny. Too bad that it were such a sad example of government's inability to determine worthwhile products. If your money isn't at stake, why do a good job? And we want these guys to tell us where health care dollars will be efficiently spent?

The federal government has been slapping "energy-efficient" ratings on products that don't even exist -- including a bogus space heater with a duster stuck to it and an alarm clock supposedly powered by gasoline.

These fake products were submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy for approval as part of an undercover investigation by the Government Accountability Office.

The office wanted to see how easily the feds could be duped, since the Energy Star program used to identify products as energy savers serves as a guide to businesses looking for such modern marvels and the basis for millions of dollars in incentivizing tax credits -- including $300 million from the stimulus.

The products fooled the federal government three out of four times. Of the 20 products submitted for approval, 15 were given the thumbs up. GAO reported that the federal government generally did not ask for critical evidence to back up its claims about how energy-efficient -- or real -- its bogus products were. . . .

With Obama's talk today down in North Carolina to tout stimulus funds:

When President Barack Obama comes to Charlotte today to tour Celgard, a battery-parts maker that has received $49 million in stimulus money, he's sure to tout how government money will put people to work.

He's visiting a company that hasn't yet spent any of its stimulus money, according to federal documents. But his visit highlights the administration's focus on using stimulus money to create green jobs and push energy efficiency.

Celgard wouldn't talk Thursday about its plans or the specifics of its grant. The governor's office has said the money will help create about 300 jobs over the next five years. . . .

Democratic Congressman worries that Guam will "Tip Over and Capsize"

Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson worries: "my fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

The Admiral responded by saying "We don't anticipate that." The Admiral noted that there are about 200,000 people living on the island. 25,000 of that total are U.S. Marines and their families. WIth 212 square miles or 135,680 square acres, that comes to about 1.47 people per square acre. Eliminating all the Marines and their families still will leave about 1.29 people per square acre.

Another strange part of the Health Care bill

If employees wanted this more than the cost of providing this, don't you think that firms would supply this? A law firm has a description here:

As part of the recent Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA), Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide breaks for nursing mothers. Under section 4207 of the PPACA, which appears to be effective immediately, employers must provide a “reasonable break time” for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child. The requirement applies for one year after the child’s birth. The PPACA places no limit on the number of the breaks to be provided, and does not contain any guidance with respect to the duration of such breaks.

In addition to providing reasonable breaks, the employer must also provide a place where the employee can express breast milk. The place must be somewhere other than a bathroom and must be “shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public.”

The law exempts any employer with fewer than 50 employees if providing the break (or the place to express breast milk) would impose an “undue hardship” on the employer. For the purposes of the PPACA, “undue hardship” is defined as “causing the employer significant difficulty or expense” when considered in relation to relevant factors. . . .

Did Obama health care bill hide $30 billion in Medicaid costs?

Even more accounting tricks in the bill?

Call it Doc Fix 2.0.

The federal government already has the “Doc Fix,” an annual shortfall of about $20 billion that must be paid to maintain current payment rates to physicians under Medicare.

Now, it looks like President Obama’s health-care bill created another funding cliff, costing an additional $5.5 billion or so each year.

Critics say the costs were hidden from view in the $940 billion health-care bill to lower the price tag by about $30 billion, and also as a way to gain the support of doctors and hospitals without angering governors.

The recently passed bill mandated that, starting in 2013, state governments must pay primary care physicians the same amount for Medicaid recipients, who are mostly poor, as it does for Medicare recipients, who are mostly elderly.

Low Medicaid reimbursement rates have cut down on the number of physicians that will even see poor and indigent recipients in the first place.

Some states pay doctors and hospitals about the same rates for Medicaid as they do for Medicare. But states with some of the largest Medicaid populations – New York, New Jersey and California – pay some of the lowest rates for Medicaid. . . .

Democrat Attorney Generals refusing to bring a lawsuit against the new health care bill

From the Politico:

They played almost no role in crafting or passing the new federal health care legislation, but Democratic attorneys general have suddenly emerged as prominent actors in the post-passage drama over the constitutionality of the landmark law.

Until recently, the Democratic attorneys general have largely sat on the sidelines as more than a dozen of their GOP counterparts banded together to pursue a lawsuit against the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s domestic policy agenda. Like many in their party, they dismissed the suit as a naked political play without any legal grounding — an opinion based on the fact that many of the Republicans advancing the cause are seeking higher office. . . .

Baltimore City Council President gets one of the rare Concealed Handgun permits issued in Maryland

Few people get concealed handgun permits in Maryland. At least important politicians understand the benefits from permits and are able to get one for themselves.

Baltimore City Council President Jack Young revealed this week that he has a conceal carry permit for a gun after drug dealers threatened his family.

Maryland State Police confirm to WBAL Radio that Young has a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

But spokesman Greg Shipley says no information will be released to explain why Young was granted the permit. That he says is considered investigatory information.

The revelation from Young came during a media tour of his two homes in the City.

Young's full time residency has been called into question after a WBAL TV report of his water bills showed that he owed the same amount for one of his home's as properties that are vacant in the city.

The Council President told reporters on Wednesday he splits his time between two homes in the city. One is on Madison Street and the other on Central Avenue. Young says he needed to find another home to live in after the drug dealers threatened his family because they were angering he was talking to police about their activities. . . .

400 percent increase in permits issued in 2009 in at least one North Carolina County

From WECT in Wilmington, NC.

On average, about 240 people apply each year for a permit. In 2009, over 1,000 people got a applied for and received their concealed carry permit. . . .

"We don't have a problem of people going through all the time and expense of the permit process, then going out and robbing a bank or assaulting someone," said Wright. "It's usually the other way around." . . .

Utah tries to get back the land that was promised to it at statehood

This is an interesting case where the state of Utah is trying to get the Federal government to live up to the promises that the Federal government made to Utah when it became a state.

Remember Gore's Prediction about Ice disappearing, After brief drop, Arctic Sea Ice levels return to long term average

Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts:

Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year. . . .

An example of the hysteria that had existed can be seen here.

UPDATE: UK Daily Mail: "Increase in Arctic ice confounds doomsayers"

The scientists who released the data stressed that last month's rise was part of yearly variations in ice cover and could not be taken as a sign that global warming is coming to an end. . . .
The unusual trend last month is revealed in figures published by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado.
In a typical year, Arctic ice cover peaks in mid-March and starts to fall as milder weather arrives.
But this year, levels continued to grow in the second half of March. Dr Mark Serreze, of the NSlDC, said parts of the Arctic were going through an unusually cold spring - but that other areas were warmer than normal.
He added: 'What this doesn't show is any indication that global warming is over. If you look at the Arctic as a whole we might get to average amounts of sea ice for the time of year. But the ice is thin and quite vulnerable and it can melt very quickly.'
The best measure of the health of the Arctic was not only the amount of cover, but also the thickness of ice, he said.
But Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation think-tank, said: 'The recent observations make the 2007 projections that the region would be ice free by 2013 look very unrealistic.'

UPDATE: From Bret Stephens at the WSJ.

As recently as October, the Guardian reported that scientists at Cambridge had "concluded that the Arctic is now melting at such a rate that it will be largely ice free within ten years." This was supposedly due to global warming. It brought with it the usual lamentations for the grandchildren.

But in March came another report in the Guardian, this time based on the research of Japanese scientists, that "much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is [due] to the region's swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming." It also turns out that the extent of Arctic sea ice in March was around the recorded average, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The difference between the two stories has little to do with science: There were plenty of reasons back in October to suspect that the Arctic ice panic—based on data that only goes back to 1979—was as implausible as the now debunked claim about disappearing Himalayan glaciers. But thanks to Climategate and the Copenhagen fiasco, the media are now picking up the kinds of stories they previously thought it easier and wiser to ignore. . . .

Democrats make Corporations that have taken cost write-offs from health care bill testify before them

From Fox News:

The CEOs of some of the country's biggest companies are being summoned to Washington to defend claims that the health care reform law would cost them millions -- a move Republicans say amounts to intimidation.

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on Friday fired off letters to the heads of Caterpillar, Verizon, AT&T and Deere after they and other firms reported that the health care overhaul would dig deep into their bottom lines.

Caterpillar claimed it would raise costs by $100 million in the first year and imperil coverage for its 150,000 employees and retirees. Deere estimated it would raise expenses by $150 million.

Waxman, in his letters, called these estimates a "matter of concern" and said they "appear to conflict with independent analyses" showing the law would lead to a decrease in premium costs for large companies.

Waxman called the CEOs to Washington to testify at an April 21 hearing and requested full documentation from the firms detailing how they arrived at their estimates.

But Republicans said the committee was trying to "bully" companies for speaking out against the legislation. . . .

The expected losses by the companies are likely to be larger than these increased costs that the companies will post.

When Congress approved the Medicare prescription drug program in 2003, it included government incentives for employers to provide drug benefits to retirees so the public system wouldn't be overwhelmed. Employers that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees can receive subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs; those subsidies totaled $3.7 billion in 2008.
Under the 2003 law, companies could deduct the entire amount they spent on the drug benefits from their taxable income — including the government subsidy, an average of $665 per retiree.
The health care law signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday prohibits companies from writing off the subsidies starting in 2011, meaning they will no longer be able to deduct them from their taxable income.
For example, if a company spent $100 on benefits, including a $28 government subsidy, it could write off the full $100 on its taxes under the old rules. The new rules would allow the same company to write off only $72.
The follow-up health care bill to reshape parts of the overhaul would delay the changes until 2013.
As many as 1.5 million to 2 million retirees could lose the drug benefits provided by their former employer because of the tax changes, according to a study by the Moran Company, a health care consulting firm.
James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, said between 6 million and 7 million retirees currently get the benefits. But the number of companies offering them has been dwindling for years.
Generally, retirees would prefer to stay with prescription drug coverage provided by their companies as opposed to enrolling in a Medicare Part D plan, said Marilyn Moon, a health care economist with the nonpartisan American Institutes for Research. . . .