677 Caterpillars: A man named Tyler Pearson had posted a list of the 1000 Twittter accounts most commonly followed by the 677 New York Times staffers on the paper's public list. It is, as you would expect, embarrassingly cocooned: Times staffers follow people who share the liberalish/leftish viewpoint of the Times itself, meaning these staffers are less likely to even find out discordant information. Which may be why they are so often surprised, or late to a story. ...
Mickey Kaus | All Articles
UKIP/Tea Party Statists May Be Onto Something: Alex Wickham of Breitbart London picks up an apparently not-very-subtle shift in the ideology of the surging UK Independence Party, which is trying to extricate Great Britain from the European Union.
Can't see the elephants for the regattas: You would think someone writing 800 words (with three charts) about the relationship between SAT scores and wealth -- the rich on average score higher -- would at least consider the possibility that (while expensive tutoring or something else might be a factor) rich people on average are a bit smarter, and they pass some of this on to their kids. You would be wrong. Not even in the Wall Street Journal! The P.C. consensus is powerful. ...
Solidarity: Paul Krugman addresses the question of whether there's "slack" in the labor market -- e.g. people still looking for work -- or whether the Fed should worry more about wage inflation (if employers bid to hire scarce workers) and less about unemployment. Do you feel any wage inflation? Krugman doesn't either. He seems to suspect the market still has slack, and if it doesn't we should maybe let wages rise first before we decide to call off the party:
What Are You Doing With Your Time on Earth? You Could Be Switching Health Plans! We spend a trillion dollars on Obamacare, and "'winners' probably outnumber 'losers' in the new marketplaces." ..."Probably"? OK! See Jonathan Cohn's ringing defense .
Undercovered: Rep. Kevin Brady has decided to run against Rep. Paul Ryan in the latter's bid for chairmanship of the Ways & Means Committee. (Ryan currently chairs the Budget Committee but is about to be termed out of that position.) The complaint against Ryan? As WaPo's Robert Costa reported, in a tweet more informative than his actual piece:
Should Republicans make the 2014 midterms a Referendum on Amnesty? Short answer: Yes! Karl Rove would never be so impolite as to mention immigration amnesty in a Wall Street Journal op ed advising Republicans what to do. Rove, like the WSJ ed board, is a long-time amnesty booster, after all. But when it comes time to actually elect a Republican in Kentucky, this is the ad a Rove-affiliated group runs, attacking the "Obama-Grimes amnesty plan."
More on whether a GOP Senate will give us immigration amnesty: Fawn Johnson of National Journal contributes to the near-dominant school of MSM reporting on immigration, a sort of locker-room pep talk in which a journalist calls activist Frank Sharry and then sketches a fanciful optimistic scenario on how amnesty could well happen. Soon! Just around the corner, really! Greg Sargent of Washington Post also specializes in this genre, which provides useful information while simultaneously rallying and deluding the MSM's pro-amnesty base. Johnson speculates about a negotiation in which Democrats would settle for any-kind-of-legalization (e.g. without a "path to citizenship"), and then sounds an ominious note:
Amnesty-skeptics can't depend on a GOP Senate:
The Mystery of the Shutdown Scenario has seemingly been solved. For a week or so, Dem-sourced commentators (e.g. Ambinder, WaPo's Plum Line, the NYT) have been seriously promoting the idea that Republicans would force a government shutdown in response to a pre-election de facto Obama executive amnesty of illegal immigrants--a shutdown that would prove politically toxic to Republicans, given their poll ratings after the last shutdown. The scenario never made much sense: It would not only require Republicans to be suicidally stupid, it would require them to be suicidally stupid after 15 columns from left-leaning pundits telegraphing a Dem strategy of goading them into doing something suicidally stupid. Various key GOPs quickly denied any shutdown plans.
Amne-geddon? Just between us, I've always had a briar-patchy attitude ** toward the prospect of a major Obama unilateral illegal-immigrant amnesty. My thinking was this:
TNR vs. NYT: New Republic's Danny Vinik takes issue with the New York Times' "prosecutorial discretion" defense of President Obama's rumored/threatened extension of executive protection (e.g., "deferred action") to millions of illegal immigrants. It's one thing to drop prosecutions on case by case basis, Vinik notes. It's another to exempt a whole category of people from any possibility that prosecutors may decide to come down on them -- that undermines the deterrent effect Congress presumably intended when it made some types of immigration unlawful. If a local county executive says "don't focus precious resources on drivers who aren't egregious speeders," you might drive a bit faster. But you still don't know for sure that you won't get a ticket for going 66 in a 65 zone. But if the executive says "nobody under 70 will get a ticket" -- well, then real speed limit will become 70, when the lawmakers intended it to be 65.
In a piece that came out election night, but reads as if it had been written two weeks earlier after a lunch with Lamar Alexander's pollster, WaPo's Sean Sullivan and Robert Costa write:
... or is it just his adviser who does? A day ago, Politico reported that incoming House GOP whip Rep. Steve Scalise uses the services of a Washington lobbyist, John Feehery, to help vet potential staffers. Ethical concerns were raised! (E.g., would Feehery, a former leadership aide, help hire people who would then owe him
[duh] and maybe help him gain access for his clients?) A "non-story," tweeted a New York Times reporter. But the real story was buried on Feehery's blog. Scalise, it seems, has sought out the counsel of someone filled with a sophomoric rage against the Tea Party faction that forms one backbone of the GOP caucus Scalise aspires to help lead. Here's a passage from Feehery's blog post,"The Tea Party Must Be Crushed" (I'm afraid the title gives it away):
We got business, we got labor, we got evangelicals. You expect me to get Congress too? Like many others, I've been on the lookout for examples of corporatism -- the tendency to replace the formal individuated equality of the market, universal rights and democracy with rule by society's various big interest groups, exercising special privileges by virtue of their particular social role and cutting deals with each other (usually to protect themselves).** Some examples of corporatism: Special privileges for reporters (they're "society's eyes and ears"!) or big banks (they're "too big to fail"). Corporatism's acutely fascinating because it's insidious, anti-democratic, sclerotic and perhaps inevitable. (If a bank is too big to let fail, as arguably several are, then that bank will almost by definition be specially shielded from the Darwinian struggle the market. Those special privileges may come with special responsibilities, but that makes them more corporatist, not less.)
The latest reporting suggests House Speaker John Boehner thinks a bit of tweaking will save his border bill --- after it was (embarrassingly) pulled from the floor Thursday due to lack of majority support. Washington Examiner's Susan Ferrechio tweets:
As predicted, the House leadership has sprung its "supertrap" on conservative dissenters, luring them to vote for a flawed border bill with the promise of a second vote on a law purporting to prevent President Obama from expanding his de facto "deferred action" (DACA) amnesty of young illegal immigrants (the so-called "DREAMers"). The main bill is itself still deeply flawed:
Update (7/29, 2:35 P.M. EDT): Senate Democrats are now explicitly saying they will try to use Boehner's border bill as a vehicle for broad, "Gang of 8" style amnesty, and immigration activists are urging them on. All the more reason to call ((202) 224-3121). A House vote on Boehner's bill is expected Thursday.