Retailers Brace for Hordes of Post-Christmas Shoppers

I'm looking forward to the total retail sales numbers.

A big holiday season will give the 4th quarter GDP numbers a boost. That's going to be great for Americans, and could help Obama's reelection prospects --- to the great consternation of Republicans.

At Los Angeles Times, "Hordes of post-Christmas shoppers expected."

Even Profitable Firms Fleeing California

Something I've written about on numerous occasions.

At O.C. Register, "California businesses can expect little sympathy from leadership in Sacramento":

Democratic reaction to the news that Waste Connections, a $3.6-billion company and major Sacramento-area employer, is headed to Houston to seek a friendlier business climate tells other businesses all they need to know about the attitudes of those who run California's government.

State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, gave these clueless and snarky remarks in response to the news: "In this instance you have a company that is, in fact, profitable, making significant revenue gains in 2011 and 2010. That doesn't speak to a bad business climate here in California when a good company is able to thrive in that way. So whatever Mr. Middelstaedt's (company CEO) reasons are to leave the great state of California, I know I'm pushing back."

Steinberg claims to have worked on improving the state's business climate, but from what we see in Sacramento, Steinberg and the party he helps lead have been pushing hard mainly for additional regulations and much higher taxes. The California Democratic Party's attitude long has been that businesses are basically trying to rip off the public, and the source of all wealth and advancement can be found in the public sector, When businesses leave. Steinberg and Co. show little sympathy.

That's because Democrats suck.

Continue reading at the link.

New York Times Decries 'Right Wing Extremism' — Again

Well, since I've been reading the Times' editorials, here you go with the latest attack on the "extremist" right, "The Race to the Right":

The toxic effects of right-wing extremism in Washington were vividly on display during the payroll-tax fiasco — even to the right wing. On the campaign trail, though, those lessons are being ignored. The leading Republican presidential candidates are overtly competing for the title of Most Conservative, distorting their own records and advocating increasingly radical positions.

Candidates often move to the ideological edges to win a primary, because that’s where the primary voters are, but the frenzied efforts of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are particularly hard to watch. Neither has a record as a dogmatic conservative, and they are competing with candidates like Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann who have much longer and more consistent conservative records. That makes their rush to the right all the more desperate and convoluted.

Last week, Mr. Romney blasted Mr. Gingrich as “an extremely unreliable leader in the conservative world,” citing specifically Mr. Gingrich’s criticisms of Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan and his appearance with Nancy Pelosi in a commercial against global warming. Mr. Gingrich, in turn, claims he’s “a lot more conservative” than Mr. Romney.

Real conservatives, in their columns and magazines, say neither of them qualifies, noting that both have previously called themselves “progressives” when appealing to very different audiences than the ones in Iowa and New Hampshire. Mr. Romney once supported abortion rights, though now he says he has changed his mind. Mr. Gingrich fiercely opposes the government’s role in the housing market, but worked for Freddie Mac. Both have supported an individual mandate for health insurance, as well as the TARP bailout of Wall Street.

To make up for their lapses in orthodoxy, each has now adopted positions at the far end of the ideological spectrum. Mr. Romney wants to send home all 11 million illegal immigrants and make them wait many years to return. He equates the president’s goal of raising taxes on the rich with redistributing wealth until the government achieves “equal outcomes” for everyone, all but calling President Obama a Marxist. Rather than demonstrate prudence after the death of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il, he recklessly demanded that the United States now push for regime change there. (Without feeling any need to explain just how that might be done, just as he has failed to explain precisely how he will end Iran’s nuclear ambitions once and for all.)

Mr. Gingrich, meanwhile, is now dispensing with the Constitution in his call to drag federal judges before Congress to explain their decisions...

Continue reading.

Call me a right wing extremist, because I don't think any of that stuff from Romney is that exceptional. Sure, both Romney and Gingrich are pandering to the base, but frankly, the concerns of the tea party and others at the grassroots aren't going to be easy to ignore heading into the general election. Republicans have to stay on  message on the economy. They have to hammer this administration for painting extreme economic conditions  in order to seize more power for a massive bureaucratic response to the recession. It hasn't worked. Just keep plugging away on that and in no time the payroll tax debacle will be ancient history and Obama will have to run on his economic record fair and square. And screw the New York Times' editors. These people are pathetic losers cheerleading for more of the same old failed policies. Progressives suck like that.

Obama Post-Recession Recovery Badly Lags the Reagan Recovery After the Severe 1981-82 Recession

At Investor's Business Daily, "Five Myths About President Obama Economic Recovery":

Over the past several months, President Obama has spent much time pleading for patience on the sluggish economy and ongoing high unemployment, arguing that the economic hole was so deep and the crisis so monumental that a slow recovery — now in its 30th month — was inevitable.

But in making his case, Obama appears to be perpetuating several myths about the recession he inherited and the slow recovery over which he's presided. Among them....

2) The country had to dig out of a historically deep hole. Obama often explains the length of the recovery by noting how deep the recession had been.

But while the so-called Great Recession lasted 18 months and sent unemployment to 10.1%, the 1981-82 recession was comparable in length and severity. That one lasted 16 months, and pushed unemployment even higher, to 10.8%.

The difference is that today unemployment is still at an historically high 8.6%, and it's only that low because the labor force has declined. Real GDP is a mere 0.04% above its pre-recession peak. At the comparable point in the Reagan recovery, unemployment had plunged to 7.3%, while the economy had grown 12% above its pre-recession peak, and was still climbing fast.

RTWT at the link.

PHOTO CREDIT: The White House, "President Barack Obama talks with a patron at Reid's House Restaurant in Reidsville, N.C., during a lunch stop on the American Jobs Act bus tour, Oct. 18, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).

Yeah, House Republicans Screwed Up — So Suck It Up and Get Back to Fighting Democrat Big-Government

I'm glad Boehner "caved," as the radical progressives describe it.

Now Republicans can work to minimize the public relations fallout over being bizarrely tarred as favoring tax increases on the middle class. It's going to take a few news cycles and perhaps a few pessimistic economic forecasts before the administration will be forced back into what should rightfully be a defense of its failed policies. In the meanwhile, the MFM outlets are having a field day with the schadenfreude, so might as well roll with it for a while.

At New York Times, "The House Backs Down":

For a full year, House Republicans have replaced governing with confrontations that they allow to reach the brink of crisis, only then making extreme demands in exchange for a resolution. On Thursday, that strategy crumbled. Battered by public opinion and undermined by more reasonable Senate Republicans, the House’s leaders backed down and signed off on a deal to continue the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance for two months.

The House Republicans’ stubborn opposition to the extension “may not have been politically the smartest thing in the world,” Speaker John Boehner said, in the understatement of the week. He still called it “a good fight.”

If the deal goes through on Friday — and even one angry lawmaker could stall it — the paychecks of 160 million workers will not shrink for at least eight weeks and three million jobless workers will keep their benefits. That will be paid for largely by mortgage fees, and negotiations will resume on paying for the remaining 10 months.

A Republican demand that President Obama make a decision on the Keystone XL oil pipeline will remain in the measure, as negotiated by the Senate last week. Republicans also won some minor adjustments to prevent small businesses from being harmed by the extension.

The struggle to reach an agreement, which was a clear victory for President Obama, exposed voters in the starkest way to the real temperament of the House that Americans elected a year ago. If the president wants it, they’re against it. If it might assist the middle class, as opposed to the rich, they will concoct an economic argument to oppose it. (“The payroll tax cut isn’t really that effective.”) And if it absolutely has to pass, they will throw in stray ideas — an oil pipeline, air pollution regulations — to win some part of their agenda, or kill the bill trying.

The Republican wounds this time were entirely self-inflicted. The crisis over the two-month extension wasn’t really about the payroll tax at all; it was about the hurt feelings of bumptious House members having to accede to a deal driven by the Senate and the White House. The real confrontation, over paying for the tax cut, is yet to come.

Well, enjoy the moment, New York Times. Paying for that "tax cut" is really more about paying for the endless entitlement state, which we can't afford and which is killing innovation and entrepreneurialism. The GOP House screwed up the messaging and tactics, but the larger goal to starve the bureaucratic beast is a necessity. The tough choices of reinventing government would perhaps be less wrenching during a period of robust growth. But we don't have any luxuries right now.

See Don Surber for more on that, "It’s worse than Zero Hedge said."

Obama Claims Victory as Congress Reaches Payroll Tax Deal

It's a good thing Boehner took the deal. The GOP was getting hammered on this, letting the Obama-Democrat-Socialists seize the mantle of tax-cutters. What a joke that is.

At Los Angeles Times, "Lawmakers reach tentative deal on payroll tax cut; House action Friday":

The agreement amounts to a reversal of sorts for the House Republican majority, which had rejected a compromise plan that the Senate overwhelmingly passed last weekend to extend relief for wage-earners for 60 more days.

Boehner had said the House wanted a full-year extension, and called on President Obama to demand the Democratic-controlled Senate return to Washington to continue negotiations.

Earlier Thursday, the Ohio Republican showed little sign of reversing course, convening his top negotiators in an otherwise-empty Capitol to call on Democrats to join them for "serious negotiations."

Asked later about the perception that Republicans had caved, Boehner said, "I think our members waged a good fight." He admitted, though, that it may not have been a politically popular one.

The White House issued a statement from Obama congratulating members "for ending the partisan stalemate.""This is good news, just in time for the holidays," he said.

"This is the right thing to do to strengthen our families, grow our economy, and create new jobs."

I commented on this debacle previously at length. But check Howard Portnoy at Hot Air, "The GOP’s costly fumble over the payroll tax extension." And also, Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary, "Capitol Hill Fiasco Again Shows Why Obama is No Pushover." More at Memeorandum.

Experts See a False Dawn in Economy's Recent Gains

Here's hoping the bad economic news weighs heavier on the voters than GOP incompetence.

At New York Times, "Signs Point to Economy's Rise, but Experts See a False Dawn":

WASHINGTON — As the fourth quarter draws to a close, a spate of unexpectedly good economic data suggests that it will have some of the fastest and strongest economic growth since the recovery started in 2009, causing a surge in the stock market and cheering economists, investors and policy makers.

In recent weeks, a broad range of data — like reports on new residential construction and small business confidence — have beaten analysts’ expectations. Initial claims for jobless benefits, often an early indicator of where the labor market is headed, have dropped to their lowest level since May 2008. And prominent economics groups say the economy is growing three to four times as quickly as it was early in the year, at an annual pace of about 3.7 percent.

But the good news also comes with a significant caveat. Many forecasters say the recent uptick probably does not represent the long-awaited start to a strong, sustainable recovery. Much of the current strength is caused by temporary factors. And economists expect growth to slow in the first half of 2012 to an annual pace of about 1.5 to 2 percent.

Even that estimate could be optimistic if Washington lawmakers fail to extend aid for the long-term unemployed and a payroll tax cut for the United States’ 160 million wage earners.

At stake is about $150 billion, the bulk of which would go to middle-class families and the unemployed. If Congress does not pass the measures, economists say, it would significantly weaken growth from already-damped levels anticipated early in the new year.

Well, come to think of it, Boehner and friends may still find a way to give the Dems all the political advantages of the lousy economy.

More on that coming up later...

The Number of Squatters Nationwide is Rising

These are just people without homes. Not to be confused with the Obama-endorsed Occupy freaks expropriating property for the revolution.

At Los Angeles Times, "Squatters say foreclosed homes beat homeless shelters":

Slips of paper are pasted to the broken door of the corner row house, violations for the garbage piled near the front steps. The stench of trash wafts up the dark interior stairway, where an ashtray filled with cigarette butts sits like an abandoned potted plant on the second-floor landing.

Nobody lives here, at least not officially.

But as you climb the narrow stairs to the top floor, a door opens into an airy apartment that is home to Tasha Glasgow, who is part of a largely invisible population of squatters occupying vacant homes across America. Given their clandestine lives, it's impossible to say how many people are squatting in this country, but with more than 1.3 million homes in foreclosure and hundreds of thousands of people homeless, advocates say it's safe to assume the number is growing.

"You have these abandoned dwellings that are sitting there vacant, sometimes for many months," said Patrick Markee of the Coalition for the Homeless in New York, where shelters are reporting record numbers of residents. "It's not an issue of whether squatting is right or wrong. The fact is that people are desperate for places to live, and they're going to do what they need to do."

RTWT.

Thank the Obama-Dems for the Depression-like conditions in this country. Squatting is illegal, but the administration doesn't give a Flying V one way or the other. For example, "Taxpayers Will Pay for President’s Hawaiian Vacation Whether He Goes or Not."

High Market Valuations of Fossil-fuel Companies Do NOT "Contradict" Government Pledges to Reduce Carbon Emissions

This "profound contraction" reportedly originated with Lord Nicholas Stern, who as an economist should know better, and has been publicized by Grist writer David Roberts (here and here). The claim is premised on a simplistic presumption that market valuations of fossil fuel companies are based (exclusively?) on the further presumption that all known reserves of fossil fuels will be extracted and sold, which cannot happen under government pledges to prevent global mean temperature increases beyond 2 degrees Celsius.

But the claim of a contradiction (either logical or as a matter of policy) is false because the premises and presumptions underlying it are false. In the first place, it is erroneous to presume that the market value of any company depends exclusively on its existing stock of assets, as if features such as (changeable) market demand, good will, and competition have no bearing on a company's value. Moreover, even if government regulations tie up some amount of carbon in the ground, that does not necessary mean that a coal company's market valuation must decline. Assuming demand is reasonably price elastic, so that the market price of coal rises as a consequence of reduced supply, fossil fuel companies could (in theory) remain equally profitable selling lower quantities of coal and oil at higher prices. They might also diversify into alternative, low-carbon energy sources, as many energy companies are in fact doing. Thus, the relation between a regulatory supply constraint does not necessarily equate with a reduction in overall profitability or market value for any particular company. (It is worth observing, in this context, that financial services companies like American Express and Wells Fargo are still highly valuable a century or more after their initial cartel-based transportation businesses were heavily regulated by the US government.)

It is even possible that regulations could increase the market value of a fossil fuel company that meets regulatory standards, for example, by improving productive efficiency. As former BP chairman Lord Browne bragged in a 2004 article in Foreign Affairs (here), his company reduced overall emissions by 10% (below 1990 levels), while increasing shareholder value by $650 billion, simply by reducing leaks and waste. Of course, because higher levels of emissions reduction are increasingly expensive emissions reductions do not invariably lead to direct increases to shareholder value. But just as companies have managed to increase profitability and market value despite increased costs of doing business (due to various market and non-market constraints) in the past, no reason exists simply to presume that (even stringent) GHG regulations would reduce their market valuations.   

Even if a regulatory restriction did reduce the profitability and market valuations of fossil fuel companies, it is a mistake to conflate a mere "pledge" by governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the actual imposition and enforcement of regulations (either quantitative or tax-based) that reduce either the supply or demand (or both) for carbon-based resources. The history of international climate negotiations to date suggests that "pledges" are worth little more than the paper on which they are printed. In other words, mere pledges do not equal credible commitments of the type generally required to move markets.     

In short, there is no contradiction between government pledges made earlier this month in Durban and market valuations  of companies that are heavily invested in fossil fuels. 

Have We Lost Faith In the Free-Market System of Entrepreneurial Capitalism?

Asks Jeb Bush, at Wall Street Journal, "Capitalism and the Right to Rise" (via Memeorandum).

Americans still favor capitalism, obviously, but the increasing affinity to socialism is startling --- and I'm not just talking about the Occupy asshats. Both Gallup and Pew recently found strong support for socialism, especially among young people.

And the reactions to the Jeb Bush piece are strong among the idiots of the neo-communist blogosphere, for example, here's epic airhead Barbara O'Brien at Mahablog:

Jeb’s got an op ed in today’s Washington Post about how American capitalism is being strangled by taxes and regulations. This is total bullshit, of course, but the wingnuts eat this stuff up. I’m thinking Jeb’s taking steps to shine up his “conservative” credentials and get his name in circulation.

That would be "Wall Street Journal," you stupid piece of scum. And your ignorance is what's "bullshit." Take my state, please. We're drowning in regulations and taxes and people have almost completely lost confidence in government --- and that would be Democrat government, from top to bottom.

But wait! There's more of teh stupid, from Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog:

"The right to rise"? In a sane America, if we wanted to use the phrase "the right to rise" at this moment in history, we'd use it to talk about people who can't rise because they can't sell a house and move to where jobs are because the fat cats won't allow serious levels of mortgage modification to stabilize the housing market; we'd talk about people who can't rise and find work because we refuse to make a serious effort to engage in the sort of Keynesian public-works stimulus that would put money in people's pockets that they would later give to struggling merchants in exchange for food, clothing, and consumer goods; we'd talk about people who can't rise because they've been laid off as teachers or cops as we refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for needed services; we'd talk about students who will struggle to rise for decades because they bear a crushing burden of student loans and no job prospects.

It's all stupid but I've highlighted the most stupid passage of all. We haven't passed a "serious" Keynesian stimulus? Steve, you're on crack, mofo!

The 2009 stimulus authorized $787 billion in government spending, i.e., over 3/4 of a $1 trillion --- and according the president's own White House Council of Economic Advisers, the failed stimulus programs has cost taxpayers a whopping $278,000 per job! Shoot, might as well have turned the stimulus into a big fat freakin' welfare program!

Moreover, being a classically gargantuan bureaucratic program, the money was wasted on pork barrel and already-existing government contracts --- not the new projects the stimulus was ostensibly designed to promote. And not only that: Frankly, whatever jobs have been created would have likely come about without the stimulus and the resultant residual net drag to growth through the additional debt burden placed on the economy. Way to go Steve M.!

 And more! The deeper problem is that Keynesianism's simply discredited, and has long been so. See Allen Metlzer, "Four Reasons Keynesians Keep Getting It Wrong":

Those who heaped high praise on Keynesian policies have grown silent as government spending has failed to bring an economic recovery. Except for a few diehards who want still more government spending, and those who make the unverifiable claim that the economy would have collapsed without it, most now recognize that more than a trillion dollars of spending by the Bush and Obama administrations has left the economy in a slump and unemployment hovering above 9%.

Read it  all --- and weep, you ASFL progressive d-bags!

Obama Hawaiian Vacation to Cost Taxpayers $4 Million

At The Foundry, "Obama’s $4 Million Hawaii Vacation."

Also at Lonely Conservative, "Obama’s Hawaiian Vacation Estimate to Cost More than $4 Million."

California Unemployment Rate Falls to 11.3 Percent! Break Out the Champagne!

I'm being facetious.

But I can't help it. Look at this ridiculously enthusiastic headline at the Los Angeles Times: "California's Jobless Rate Falls for Fourth Month in a Row! The State Unemployment Rate Declines to 11.3% in November, a Sign That the Labor Market is Slowly Recovering!"

That's the real headline. All I've added is the exclamation point! But seriously. You'd think it's HAPPY DAYS AGAIN! by the looks of the newspaper, and remember I still get the rag in hard copy!

And it only takes a quick glance at Google to see that the state's still mired in depression-like conditions in many parts for state, the California Central Valley, for example. See the Turlock Journal, "Good news, bad news in local unemployment rates":

The latest figures from the Economic Development Department reflect some good news for Stanislaus County and some not so heartening news.

Stanislaus County posted an unemployment rate of 15.5 percent in November, just slightly up from the revised October rate of 15.3 percent. This marked the third month in a row that the county has had an unemployment rate below 16 percent, something that has been a rarity during these troubled economic times.

A small uptick in November's unemployment rate hasn't been seen since November 2007, and bucks the trend of the past few years, said EDD labor market analyst Nati Martinez.

In November 2007, the unemployment rate went from 8.2 percent to 8.8 percent. In 2008, it rose from 11.2 percent to 12.1 percent in November. In November 2009, the rate grew from 15.9 percent to 16.7 percent and last year it jumped from 16.1 percent to 17.2 percent in the same time frame, according to the EDD.

Stanislaus County's November unemployment rate for this year was well below the year-ago estimate of 17.2 percent.

However, the gains reflected in the EDD's report are tempered by the fact that less people are reporting that they are looking for work. Stanislaus County's labor force, which stood at an estimated 237,300 in October, fell to 233,200.

I added the italics, since for all the "great" news about declining unemployment --- nationwide and in California --- the fact is huge numbers of people are discouraged and remain so unhappy about their prospects that they've simply given up looking for a job. When that happens, they drop off the statistics for the "active" labor force, and in fact the unemployment rate improves. As always, official unemployment statistics systematically undercount the unemployed.

More on all of this later. When the national unemployment rate falls to 6 percent I'll pop a bottle of champagne. And 8 percent in California would be worth a little celebration.

RELATED: At New York Times, "As Wars End, Young Veterans Return to Scant Jobs."

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers on 'The Kudlow Report'

Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers discusses the U.S. role in the European debt crisis:

And see John Gizzi, at Human Events, ""Exclusive: IMF Chief Lagarde, Rep. McMorris Rodgers in Sitdown," and at Telegraph UK, "Christine Lagarde: European financial crisis is too serious for eurozone countries to solve alone."

French Leaders Launch Outspoken Public Attacks on Britain

At Telegraph UK, "French leaders declare a war of words on Britain":

French leaders have launched outspoken public attacks on Britain, calling for the UK to lose its AAA credit rating and comparing its economy with that of Greece.

Christian Noyer, the governor of the Bank of France, said that Britain faced larger national debts, higher inflation and slower growth than France.

François Baroin, the finance minister, said Britain was “marginalised” and faced “a very difficult economic situation” because of Coalition policies.

The blunt remarks are the latest sign of Anglo-French tension following David Cameron’s refusal last week to back a new European treaty drawn up in response to the eurozone crisis.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, also provoked anger in France recently by suggesting it could be the next eurozone economy to experience a debt crisis. France and Germany want a new treaty to create a “fiscal union” of eurozone members, to control their deficits and reassure the markets.

Mr Baroin told the French parliament that the pact had been backed by every country in Europe, “with the singular, now solitary, exception of Great Britain, which history will remember as marginalised”.

Plus, from a couple of days ago at Der Spiegel, "The End of Old Europe: Why Merkel's Triumph Will Come at a High Price."

Ron Paul Wants to Abolish the EPA

No surprise there. And he offers a conventional libertarian bromide as a substitute for the regulatory agency: "Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create...." For years, small minorities of economists and libertarians calling themselves "free-market environmentalists" (see, e.g., here and here) have argued that common-law property protections, by themselves, can and would supply efficient, even optimal, levels of environmental protection. They would certainly be right, if we lived in the mythical world of the "Coase theorem," in which information is complete and transacting is costless (see here). Indeed, if we lived in that world, we wouldn't even need property law or courts to resolve environmental disputes as parties in the free market would costlessly bargain to optimal allocations of pollution. But, as Coase himself acknowledged many times (see id.), the world we live in is not at all like the world of the "Coase theorem." In the real world, theories of free-market environmentalism are dangerously misguided because of transaction costs and the real limitations of common-law solutions to environmental problems.

Here's what Coase had to write about environmental protection in his 1959 article on "The Federal Communications Commission" (see here, p. 29):

[I]f many people are harmed and there are several sources of pollution, it is more difficult to reach a satisfactory solution through the market. When the transfer of rights has to come about as a result of market transactions carried out between large numbers of people or organizations acting jointly, the process of negotiation may be so difficult and time-consuming as to make such transfers a practical impossibility. Even the enforcement of rights through the courts may not be easy. It may be costly to discover who it is that is causing the trouble. And, when it is not in the interest of any single person or organization to bring suit, the problems involved in arranging joint actions represent a further obstacle. As a practical matter, the market may become too costly to operate.

In these circumstances, it may be preferable to impose special regulations (whether embodied in a statute or brought about as a result of the rulings of an administrative agency).

 Peter Grossman and I build on Coase's arguments in Chapter 15 of our book, Principles of Law and Economics (Aspen 2011), pp. 397-8:

The causation-proof problems Coase recognizes are especially important. Many pollutants travel long distances, and pollution-related diseases can have long latency periods. To prevail in court, plaintiffs must be able to trace their harm to a particular pollution source that might be located hundreds of miles away, and prove that their harm was proximately caused by exposure to a certain pollutant that may have occurred several decades ago. This evidentiary burden is often unbearable, and always very expensive. Moreover, common-law courts have traditionally restricted nuisance remedies to cases involving visible air pollution, such as smoke and dust; bad odors were usually not enough to state a claim. But, of course, many harmful pollutants - including some of the most toxic - are invisible. 

In addition to causation-proof problems, common-law remedies only protect environmental resources subject to property rights; they do not protect unowned, common-pool resources, regardless of social value.

The problems raised, respectively, by Coase and Cole and Grossman bear on Paul's belief that common-law causes of action provide sufficient remedies for environmental harms, but ultimately they are inapposite to his opposition to EPA and large-scale environmental regulation because Paul is not a welfare-consequentialist. As true-believing libertarian, Paul is more interested in maximizing individual liberty than overall social welfare (although he might believe that maximizing the former would maximize the later). Paul's strict libertarianism distinguishes him from his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. While they mostly pander to anti-environmental interest groups, Paul's environmental position is principled. But, if implemented as policy, it would be disastrous for the health and welfare of the American people.

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers: 'We Are Changing the Course Here in America to a Pro-Growth Agenda'

McMorris Rogers hammers the administration's threatened veto of the payroll tax cut extension with the Keystone XL provision.

Also earlier at New York Times, "House Republicans’ Bill Sets Up Pipeline Battle."

PREVIOUSLY: "House Approves Payroll Tax Cut Extension."

House Approves Payroll Tax Cut Extension

At National Journal, "House Passes Payroll-Tax Package Obama Has Threatened to Veto":

Legislation to extend the payroll-tax holiday, reduce and extend unemployment benefits, and avoid a 27 percent cut to Medicare doctor reimbursement passed the House on Tuesday by a vote of 234 to 193.

The legislation, which passed with just 10 Democratic votes, will head to the Senate where a vote is expected later this week. Leadership aides in the Senate said they expect the GOP-drafted legislation to fail when it reaches the Senate floor.

Leaders in both the House and the Senate have agreed to extend the programs in the GOP legislation, but the fight still continues over the size of the unemployment program, the future of the Keystone XL pipeline, and how to pay for the package. Democratic objection to the House-passed bill led to an official veto threat from President Obama on Tuesday.

Also at New York Times, "House Passes Extension of Cut to Payroll Taxes" (via Memorandum).

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Goes All Baghdad Bob on Obama Administration's Epic Unemployment Numbers

U.S. unemployment was 7.2 percent in December of 2008, which at that time was the highest since 1993, according to a New York Times report from January 2009 (the month Barack Obama took office). But don't tell that to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who sounds like Saddam Hussein's Minister of Information, Baghdad Bob:

Via RealClearPolitics, "DNC Chair Denies Unemployment Has Gone Up Under Obama." And Miami Herald, "DNC chair Wasserman Schultz stumbles on Obama unemployment stat."

And more at Hot Air, "DNC chair: Unemployment didn’t go up under Obama!"

Lonely Conservative has it all graphed out: "Obama’s Unemployment Record." Plus, "Unemployment Is 11% If You Count Those Who Gave Up In Despair."

Scott Brown Faces Tough Challenge From Elizabeth Warren

At Wall Street Journal, "Scott Brown's Strategy":

This week Senate Republicans blocked President Obama's nomination of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Only two Republicans broke ranks -- Olympia Snowe of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts -- and both senators are up for re-election next year.

Ms. Snowe should win handily if she isn't toppled by a primary challenger. Mr. Brown's re-election prospects, by contrast, are shakier. Two new polls show the GOP freshman trailing Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor who helped establish the CFPB and is expected to be the Democratic nominee. The University of Massachusetts-Amherst gives Ms. Warren a four-point lead and a University of Massachusetts-Lowell/Boston Herald poll has her up by seven points. Three months ago, most polls showed Mr. Brown slightly ahead. The senator's approval rating has also fallen by eight points to 45%, though his favorables are still in positive territory and exceed Ms. Warren's.

While the poll results may be disconcerting for Mr. Brown and Senate Republicans, they're not unexpected. Ms. Warren's campaign has spent $1.5 million on an ad that portrays her as a defender of the middle class. And the League of Conservation Voters has dumped $2 million on spots that tar Mr. Brown as a Washington insider. The real surprise is that Mr. Brown still leads Ms. Warren, 53-37, with independents. Because Republicans constitute less than 15% of the Massachusetts electorate, Mr. Brown will probably have to win more than two-thirds of the independent vote and probably pick up some Democrats as well.

Continue reading.

VIDEO HAT TIP: Los Angeles Times, "Elizabeth Warren blasts 'ridiculous' charge in ad by Karl Rove group."

Weekly Republican Address: House Speaker John Boehner on Middle Class Tax Relief & Job Creation Act

From the GOP Conference: