Newest Fox News piece: "Mr. Obama, you can’t blame our economic troubles on weather"

With the Obama administration continuing to blame the poor economic growth in the first quarter on the weather, it seemed useful to include a few facts.  Sure, it is certainly plausible that bad weather can impact GDP, but neither cold weather or bad snow storms seem to have a really noticeable impact.  More importantly at the end of the piece I offer a way to test if Obama is right about the claim.  My newest piece at Fox News start this way:

The economy took a bad hit during the first quarter this year.  It shrunk at an annual rate of 2.96 percent.  Since the beginning of 1947, there are only 16 of the 268 quarters experienced worse growth. 

The Obama administration blames the slow growth on the “historically severe winter weather, which temporarily lowered growth.” Jason Furman, the chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, made this assertion again on July 3 and President Obama has made this claim several times.  

But that doesn’t square with the historic data. The five worst winter storms or winters with the coldest temperatures do not match economic downturns. 

In a list of the worst United States winter storms since 1888, Epic Disasters, using National Weather Service data, lists five of the ten worst occurring since 1947.  Four of the five saw economic growth.  Only during the fifth worst stormdid the economy shrink.  The average annualized GDP growth during the quarters when those storms struck was 1.8 percent. . . . .

Read More

John Walsh vows to continue Piers Morgan's Gun-Control campaign on CNN

Walsh will be much more effective at making this argument than Piers for the simple reason that he is much more likable.   From The Wrap:

Besides hosting “America's Most Wanted” and advocating for victims’ rights, Walsh has been a longtime advocate of background checks and other safety measures. He said he would continue that fight now that he is joining CNN as the host of “The Hunt,” a new show about catching fugitives. . . .
“I am the guy that has seen both sides of the issue,” Walsh told reporters Monday. “I own guns. I'm the father of a murdered child. I've done nothing but track violence in America since my son was murdered. We have a serious problem with guns in this country. And we refuse to address it. And the NRA solution to arm every grammar-school 80-year-old teacher with a gun is absolutely ludicrous,” he said.
Walsh said the NRA is so deeply in the pocket of the gun industry that “they're not a lobbyist on Capitol Hill, they're a gun manufacturer rep.” He also said Vice President Joe Biden recently agreed with him that politicians are “scared s—less” of the NRA. . . .

Just because background checks work well in theory doesn't mean that the current system actually works that way.  You can find out some of the problems with the background check system here and here.

Obviously the claim that the NRA wants to arm everyone in schools is a gross exaggeration.  The NRA proposal was to arm uniformed guards, something that Bill Clinton had supported when he was president, and something that I thought was a mistake because armed guards are likely to be the first target.

On polls Walsh says:

“I said to Joe Biden, '90 percent of Americans are for a responsible background check for a gun, and you know what this Congress has done? Not voted on it, not brought it to the floor, not introduced a bill,'” Walsh said. “I said, ‘They're all scared shitless of the NRA, aren't they?'” . . . 

You can find out why his claim is incorrect here. 

Read More

So can the bad winter storms during the first quarter of 2014 explain the shrinking economy?

The Obama administration has blamed the slow growth on the “historically severe winter weather, which temporarily lowered growth.”  Jason Furman, the chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, made this assertion again on July 3^rd. 

In a list of the worst United States winter storms since 1888, Epic Disasters, using National Weather Service data, lists five of the ten worst occurring since 1947.  Four of the five saw economic growth.  Only during the fifth worst storm did the economy shrink.  

Read More

Newest piece at the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Soccer may be 'in,' but it's not an injury-free sport"

My newest piece at the Philadelphia Inquirer starts this way:

With all the recent coverage given to the World Cup, interest in soccer is frequently described as reaching a "tipping point." Even President Obama has done his part to popularize the sport: taking time out from his busy schedule to watch the U.S.-Germany match, playing soccer against a robot on his recent trip to Japan, and chatting with foreign leaders about the game's finer points.  

But the president appears unaware of the health risks. He has strongly warned Americans about the risks of playing football, going so far this year as saying, "I would not let my son play pro football." He hasn't offered such similar warnings about soccer.  

Obama is not alone in apparently believing that soccer is less dangerous than American football. Surely the media have been all over how dangerous football is for concussions. And the lawsuits filed by NFL players have received much attention.  

Unfortunately, soccer is not the benign alternative it is often portrayed as being. 

Take concussions.  

In college, women's soccer has a higher rate of concussions than men's football or soccer: 6.3 per 10,000 times women participate in soccer practice or a game versus 4.9 for men's soccer and 6.1 for men's football. Indeed, among college sports, women's soccer has the highest rate of concussions.  

But concussions aren't the only problem. In total injuries, both men's and women's soccer exceed those of men's football. Total injuries for men's soccer are 11.14 per 10,000 practices or games and 9.7 for women's soccer. For football, the number is 9.5. . . .

The rest of the piece is available here. 

Read More

The "do nothing" US Senate, Harry Reid keeps protecting Democrats from hard votes

Senate Democrats essentially shutdown voting in Senate to protect their members from any hard votes before the November election.  From ABC News:

. . . With control of the Senate at risk in November, leaders are going to remarkable lengths to protect endangered Democrats from casting tough votes and to deny Republicans legislative victories in the midst of the campaign. The phobia means even bipartisan legislation to boost energy efficiency, manufacturing, sportsmen's rights and more could be scuttled.
The Senate's masters of process are finding a variety of ways to shut down debate.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., now is requiring an elusive 60-vote supermajority to deal with amendments to spending bills, instead of the usual simple majority, a step that makes it much more difficult to put politically sensitive matters into contention. This was a flip from his approach to Obama administration nominees, when he decided most could be moved ahead with a straight majority instead of the 60 votes needed before.
Reid's principal aim in setting the supermajority rule for spending amendments was to deny archrival Sen. Mitch McConnell a win on protecting his home state coal industry from new regulations limiting carbon emissions from existing power plants. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, faces a tough re-election in Kentucky. . . .
"I just don't think they want their members to have to take any hard votes between now and November," said Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb. And there's "just no question that they're worried we're going to win some votes so they just shut us down."
Vote-a-phobia worsens in election years, especially when the majority party is in jeopardy. Republicans need to gain six seats to win control and Democrats must defend 21 seats to the Republicans' 15. . . .

Of course, for some Democrats this prevents them from developing any type of record to run on.  From the WSJ:

No one has done more to protect Senate Democrats from difficult votes than Majority Leader Harry Reid, but a funny thing is happening as another election nears. His own vulnerable Members are griping about the lack of votes.
Alaska Sen. Mark Begich was elected in 2008 and hasn't been able to get a Senate vote on any of his proposed legislative amendments. For years he was silent but suddenly he's upset, telling Politico: "Does it mean increased risks? Sure. That's what voting is about." West Virginia's Joe Manchin complained to the Hill newspaper: "I've never been in a less productive time in my life than I am right now, in the United States Senate."
They're right about the numbers. Wyoming Republican John Barrasso recently noted on the floor that Senate Democrats proposed 676 amendments in the last year but were allowed votes on all of seven. Republicans proposed 812 and got votes on 11. Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee has been allowed twice as many amendment votes (15) in the Republican House in the last year than Mr. Reid has allowed his entire Senate caucus. Not one of the nine Senate Democrats elected in 2012 has been granted a floor vote on any of their amendments. . . . 

With this voting record, it is pretty hard for Begich to argue that his being in office is of much value. 

Read More

Technological advances undermining another government created monopoly: Taxi cabs versus Uber

The 13,605 taxi medallions in NYC are valued at about $13.5 billion. The 6,904 medallions in Chicago are worth $2.4 billion.  To put it mildly, government regulation has created a lot of rents for those who own these medallions.  From the Washington Post:

. . . Now, however, a market built on restricted supply is showing cracks with the arrival of start-ups that turn anyone with a car into a driver for hire. In Chicago, those cracks have triggered fears that medallion values are tottering. They have given rise to a high-stakes lawsuit, tentative new regulation and a glimpse of how this same clash between old power and new technology could play out in other cities.
Throw open the market — to amateurs, part-timers and the underemployed (and whatever they drive) — and medallions lose their exclusivity. Without which, they lose their value, too.
“As soon as you do away with limited access, over a period of years, the taxi industry will wither away and die,” says Michael Shakman, a Chicago attorney who is suing the city on behalf of investors and companies whose business would not exist without medallions. “You will be left with whatever the free market generates by way of transportation.”
That, Uber says, is precisely the point. The five-year-old San Francisco tech company — and the envy of Silicon Valley — has rapidly and strategically infiltrated taxi strongholds by enabling consumers to hail rides electronically from their smartphones.
Uber and companies like it argue that regulations intended for taxis don’t apply to a service no one could have envisioned when the laws were written. And consumers don’t seem to care what those laws say. They are piling in and leaving cities to chase after a fast-expanding business. . . . 

Read More

Our former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, doesn't know that in the UK "Conservative" and "Tory" are synonyms for the same political party

Hillary Clinton on the Special Relationship between the US and Britain:

"It is so special to me personally and I think that it is very special between our two countries.  There is just not just a common language, there is a common set of values that we can fall back on.  It doesn't matter in our country whether it is a Republican or Democrat, or frankly in your country whether it is a 'Conservative' and 'Tory.'  There is a level of trust and understanding.  That doesn't mean that we alway agree because of course we don't."

Read More