Comments by Torres F.J.

Faced with an economic problem, the politicians are seeking a political solution which, as political solutions are wont to, relies on spending other people's money. Expect "some" resistance and/or resentment from those whose pockets would be picked.
The problem with the "superstate solution" is that, like the EU itself, the composite state-to-be would lack ground level legitimacy. It is no secret that the EU is an alliance of states, not of peoples, and the peoples themselves are less than fully committed to the "joint venture" their states have embarked on.
The euro elites have long avoided taking their EU commitments to the people because they knew the people would not buy-in to those commitments; taking on even deeper commitments is not going to be any more palatable coming under threat of economic disaster than the lesser ones were in times of plenty.
A superstate born under threat would be but a breeding ground for resentment and the one thing europe does not need is more ground-level grievances dividing its peoples.
This is not the time nor the way to birth a stable european federation; some prices are not worth paying.
Short-term economic stability purchased at the cost of long term political instability is a deal to be avoided.

Well, that looks like a good way to go.
Harrass the germans into footing the bill through mutualized public debt.
It could also urge the Germans to take their creditworthiness to another currency, say a new Mark.

So now we have *two* games of "chicken" running in euro-land; greece and germany.

Very interesting...

Political influence was not the only criterion, though.
Puerto Rico has zero votes in the House or Senate but San Juan got a flight: Most likely so the Honorable Senators and Representatives can schedule meetings and conferences there in January and February.
(Even in a warm winter, the booze goes down better in PR.) :D

Correct on all counts.
And the odds of anybody actually navigating the bureaucratic maze of up-front paperwork and the legal maze of last minute NIMBY lawsuits?
Zero.
30 years : Zero new facilities.
Under presidents from both parties, Senates and Houses run by either or both parties. Nothing changes because regardless of party it is lawyers and politicians running the show, not engineers or economists. Technical or economic merit doesn't factor into it; pandering and populism does.

Which is what NIMBY is all about; grandfathering the control of the early settlers. Essentially: "We got here first, go find your own turf."

Sounds like you had an encounter with a Berkely resident. ;)
An independent California would be a welcome development for the residents of many neighbor states that would relish the chance to block the flow of California refugees flooding their communities. :D

A shift towards development-focused policies that can "steam-roller" NIMBY would do wonders in the energy sector.
For all the whining about oil speculators raising gasoline prices, the biggest factor in price spikes is refinery undercapacity. It's been what, 30? 40? years since the last US refinery was built?
It wouldn't be hard to prove a significant *national* GDP benefit from even *one* new refinery (Delta airlines is even mulling buying one to assure their fuel supply) but getting past the kneejerk reaction from the NIMBYs is a hopeless cause; the laws and the legal system are too skewed towards the obstructionist minorities.
Things will likely get worse before the laws get changed to level the playing field.

Never mind the lost job potential for the US as a whole; California itself is drowning in red ink because of its decreased tax revenues. That should be all the incentive they need to accomodate job creation.
Yet it isn't.
Of course, it has been suggested California is now incapable of governing itself.

If you're interested in *that* you might want to look to William J. Bernstein's THE BIRTH OF PLENTY: HOW THE PROSPERITY OF THE MODERN WORLD WAS CREATED.
He focuses on cultural, political, and economic factors that are necessary for stable efficient economies. Things like primacy of the law, secure property rights, free capital flows, etc.
A pretty solid presentation.

Hmm, I see consideration given to Greece dropping the euro, which might or not lead to similar crises/exits for Spain, Italy, even France...

What if, instead, Germany leaves? A nice, friendly, orderly exit stage right. (Or not-so-friendly expulsion?)
What if?
Without german pressure for austerity and competitiveness, the rest of the zone would be free to devalue the euro to its natural (lack-of?) value. The zone is starting to break into two camps, anyway: Germany and everybody else.
Maybe instead of pondering if the Euro zone needs greece it might be better to ponder if the Euro zone needs (or can afford) Germany.
If thinking the unthinkable, why not think of expelling Germany?
Just wondering... ;)

Borat? Not my tea.
Sorry, not even free.

The movie is best reviewed in 4 words: Watch it; it's fun.

Point of fact: not all hispanics are obsessed with the "plight" of mexican ilegal migrants.
The Florida cubans are obsessed with Castro and Cuba.
The Florida Venezuelans are obsessed with Chavez and his cancer.
The Puertoricans in Florida and elsewhere are obsessed with the massive identity theft rings that victimize them and their kids to feed the illegal immigrant documentation market.
And most other native-born hispanics are obsessed with the non-existent economic recovery and making an honest living.
The best thing about mexican self-deportation is that maybe the democrats will remember that there are other, native-born, hispanics that count, too.
The second best thing is that the real national-security aspect in immigration is the need to bring in skilled immigrants that can contribute to the econnomy as well as *retain* the best of the foreign students coming to study in America.
Neither are subjects that can be addressed while the two parties obsess over the mexicans. So, yes, let's get the debate back where it belongs: the needs of the country and its citizens.

To the extent that Sarkozy and Hollande play up nationalist and populist themes they are tilling the soil for LePen. After all, why go for watered-down french nationalism and populism when the full-strength product is right at hand? ;)

The process I'm referring to is not the process for passing the bill. (Though as even you admit, the way it was passed is fishy enough.)

The processes I refer to are the mechanics of the system the law, as enacted, implements; the process whereby funding is collected and distributed to pay for the Congress's "Largesse". (Hence the analogy with the mechanism whereby cabinet heads are confirmed.)

The case before the supreme court argues that the *way* the law *works* uses mechanisms that congress is not authorized to use.

Everybody agrees that if the law worked through a traditional tax-and-spend mechanism it would be legal. What is being debated is whether or not the federal government's power of coercion can be used to compel consumption of a commercial product.

The issue at stake is whether the end justifies the means; whether the fact that a legal *operational* mechanism exists to achieve a goal means that any alternate mechanism, even an illegal one, can be substituted at will.

That is the slippery slope: if any means to the same end is fine,even once, how do you chose *which* ends justify any means.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the goal being pursued; what matters is if you care how the goverment pursues that goal.

Correct.
It is an issue of due process.
The constitution set up a system of processes that must be followed as defined and cannot be short-circuited solely because the end-result is "materially equivalent".

It is like a president saying that because his party controls both houses of Congress and any Cabinet Official he nominates is going to be approved, he doesn't really *have* to secure congressional advise and consent to put anybody he chooses in charge of the department of the interior.

"Materially equivalent" is a slippery slope, people.

Double-tap McCourt. ;)

Like Spain, that went from a Dictatorship to democracy and EU integration.
Like Germany, which went from partition to unification.
Like France, Italy, or the Netherlands...
Countries that aren't economic basket cases.

It would be nice to see a few more countries called out.
The Euro zone, for starters.
Venezuela.
Mexico.
Colombia.
Turkey.
Indonesia.
Egypt.
There's a fair amount of backsliding countries in that chart but few are called out.

He was found guilty of a crime that carries a 5-10 year sentence.
So he's up for a 5 year minimum. With good behavior and prison over-crowding he might get paroled in 3 years or so.
*Then* he'll be deported.

Of course, given the very clear stretch that resulted in the verdict, an appeal is pretty much a certainty. And that will take a couple of years by itself.

Lots of handwringing, viewing with concern, and billable hours still to come.