Hope everyone enjoyed and used the hell out of that extra second we got last night. 

No Progress in the War on Poverty - And There Never Will Be

For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always - Mark 14:7

So the War on Poverty has been on-going for 47 years and after untold billions spent the net effect has been...nada, zip, nothing:

"[S]ince President Obama took office [in January 2009], federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year," the study says.

Federal welfare spending in fiscal year 2011 totaled $668 billion, spread out over 126 programs, while the poverty rate that remains high at 15.1 percent, roughly where it was in 1965, when President Johnson declared a federal War on Poverty.

Now if you dig down enough, you find that the federal poverty levels were basically set in 1962 as 3 times the Department of Agriculture's economy food plan for families of three or more people and have been adjusted for inflation every year since then. Which is not a terrible way of measuring poverty but also ignores the fact that the cost of food in constant dollars has actually gone down since 1962.

But the biggest reason that the poverty rate has remained unchanged is because it only measures income - not actual poverty:

The official poverty measure counts only monetary income. It considers antipoverty programs such as food stamps, housing assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid and school lunches, among others, "in-kind benefits" - and hence not income. So, despite everything these programs do to relieve poverty, they aren't counted as income when Washington measures the poverty rate.

So basically the federal poverty rate reflects the number of people who are poor before they receive any charity or government benefits. And since this effect is more or less baked into the statistical cake, you can bet that the official US poverty rate circa 2050 will be around 15%.

Let the preemptive hand-wringing commence.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:31 PM | Comments (399)
Post contains 1045 words, total size 13 kb.

The Battle of San Juan Hill. One hundred and fourteen years ago today.

The decisive battle of the Spanish-American War, but a costly one. And one that showed how armament technology can make the difference. The American forces carried inferior Krag-Jørgensen* .30 bolt action rifles, and outmoded artillery pieces that could not reach Spanish positions.

The Spaniards were armed with 7 mm Mauser M1893 rifles which were much more effective. And as a result, owning the heights with superior firepower, a Spanish force of less than a thousand men held off a US and Cuban assault of almost 20,000.

Theodore Roosevelt commanded the First United States Volunteer Cavalry, the "Rough Riders". Initially not part of the tactical battle plan, intended to be used as a diversionary force they instead found themselves in the middle of the battle, and realizing their fire could not knock the enemy from position, instead charged Kettle Hill, supported by three Gatling guns.

The Gatlings suppressed a Spanish counter-attack. And the American Army had a hero and a reason to ditch the Krag. The Springfield 1903 would be the American infantryman's rifle until WWII and the M-1 Garand.

The Marines were skeptical. They loved the Springfield that much.

* Using authentic slash through the letter O because a Møøse once bit my sister...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 01:18 PM | Comments (276)
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

Dancing Popcorn rates it "better than Dancing Hot Dog's movie." more...

Posted by: rdbrewer at 12:50 PM | Comments (110)
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

OUT: Legal briefs. IN: Newspapers.

Jan Crawford at CBS reports that Chief Justice Roberts likes to read newspapers, unlike many of the other justices.

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

I was telling the cob-loggers in email that in France their tradition is that judges don't party. I hope my recollection is right. French judges don't socialize much at all--at least, they avoid it at almost any cost. Their tradition is that they feel they might be called upon someday to rule on a case that touches those people, and they don't want to be influenced by their associations. For similar reasons, many of our justices don't read the newspapers. They don't want to be influenced by what people are saying.

In the case at hand, none of the district judges, the circuit judges, the attorneys, the parties, the other justices, or the general consensus of legal scholars felt the taxing power would fly. No one felt it was a serious argument. It got only a brief mention by the government's lawyer. And most were either preparing for or bracing for the ACA to be struck down. But John Roberts knew better.

From an old post:

The Rule of Law protects against man's tendency to bask in the light of his own shining intellect--to imagine himself superior to all decision makers who have gone before . . . .

So we give judges authority, not power. And we make them swear an oath to uphold the law--by definition, a thing that already exists, not one's newly minted personal views. We entrust judges with the authority to weigh the law and to apply it objectively as if blindfolded--blind to all other considerations.

. . .

Thus, there has been a growing amount of reverse jurisprudence--arguing backward from a desired outcome and twisting legal reasoning to support the view. This has nothing to do with applying law and has everything to do with the attempted use of power to exert one's will over others. These self-indulgent despots have abandoned what it means to be a judge. Their open disinterest in impartiality and upholding the law--documented easily enough--is a clear violation of their oath, and, in my view, it is grounds for removal from office.

So he read the newspapers and/or schmoozed, and after having taken the temperature of public sentiment--the liberal, east coast public sentiment--he decided the ACA had to stand at any cost. My guess is that Roberts originally wanted to strike down the mandate but keep the ACA by ruling the mandate was severable. But when the four dissenters would not go along with him on severability, he sided with the liberals and wrote a contorted decision to uphold the law. He was arguing backward from a desired outcome.

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 12:26 PM | Comments (161)
Post contains 632 words, total size 4 kb.

OUT: Arguing your case in court. IN: Lobbying Supreme Court justices.

Volokh Conspiracy has the transcript of Jan Crawford reporting on CBS Face the Nation that Chief Justice Roberts switched his vote in May.

I am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the courtÂ’s deliberations that Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case and was prepared to strike down the heart of this law, the so-called individual mandate, of course, that requires all Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty. but Roberts, IÂ’m told by my sources, changed his views deciding to instead join with the liberals.

More from CBS:

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

So Roberts knew better than the other justices, the circuit court judges, the district court judges, the attorneys, and the American public.

OUT: The rule of law. IN: The rule of Roberts.

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 09:38 AM | Comments (611)
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess none of the other cob-loggers are up yet, so...

Today's Zero content open thread is brought to you by The Fixx:

I really love that old-school turntable and cartridge. It looks just like the set-up I used to have when I was a young punk in college back in the 70s.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:44 AM | Comments (134)
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Good morning morons and moronettes. I don't know about you, but I'm still pretty bummed out out SCOTUS putting its stamp of approval on Obamacare. In the wake of this ruling, my question is this: is there anything at all the federal government can be forbidden to do?* Between stretching the use of the Commerce Clause to grotesque lengths and the federal power to levy taxes, that pretty much covers all the bases, doesn't it? Anything that Fedgov want to do can be legally argued to be either the one or the latter.

This makes me sick to my stomach.

^{*I mean, other than protecting unborn babies from being killed, of course}

How to blow stuff up real good

Seriously, what's a 4^th of July without fireworks?

Actually, the book is about how to make fireworks, it's not a demolitions manual. Although I suppose that with enough Valu-Rite, it could be.

And this collection of Chinese fireworks art looks like fun. I always remember the instructions on the firecracker wrappers: 'Lay on ground. Light fuse. Get away.' Always cracked me up, for some reason. Didn't say we couldn't throw them at each other, though.

That's all I have for this week. Hey, any of you morons planning on buying the new Nexus 7 tablet? I have to admit it looks pretty cool.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:44 AM | Comments (148)
Post contains 340 words, total size 3 kb.

July? How'd that happen so fast?

Posted by: andy at 03:20 AM | Comments (293)
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.