A State Actually Eliminates Regulations? I May Faint.

Of course, there will always be more.The state of Minnesota has
actually struck down more than 1,000 old, obsolete laws. Imagine
that!
From the Pioneer Press
:

It’s no longer a crime in Minnesota to carry fruit in an
illegally sized container. The state’s telegraph regulations are
gone. And it’s now legal to drive a car in neutral — if you can
figure out how to do it.

Those were among the 1,175 obsolete, unnecessary and
incomprehensible laws that Gov. Mark Dayton and the Legislature
repealed this year as part of the governor’s “unsession”
initiative. His goal was to make state government work better,
faster and smarter.

“I think we’re off to a very good start,” Dayton said Tuesday at
a Capitol news conference.

There’s actually more than getting rid of those silly laws that
make up occasional “listicles” of “24 Things You Didn’t Know Were
Illegal.” A new law is supposed to streamline the state
environmental permitting process for businesses, and the state is
also cutting the amount of time businesses are required to maintain
employment records. The Press says these efforts were a
result of a bipartisan push. And there’s also this:

Legislators launched an initiative that got rid of more than 30
advisory boards, councils and task forces that had outlived their
usefulness.

It’s possible to get rid of these? I didn’t even know that.
Knowing state government, though, that’s probably less than 1
percent of the advisory boards, councils and task forces that have
actually outlived their usefulness (or never actually had a real
use to begin with).

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1oOnyn8
via IFTTT

New Orleans Becomes An All-Charter School City

one of the first free schools in new orleans, funded by the estate of a deceased philanthropistThe last of New Orleans’
government-run schools (five of them) closed this week, and when
the school year starts in September, every student in the public
education system will be attending one of the 58 charter schools in
the city. 510 out of the school district’s 600 employees will
 be gone by the end of the week. The public education system
in New Orleans has been run by the state’s “Recovery School
District” since Hurricane Katrina hit the city in 2005. At that
time, the state took over 102 of 117 schools in the city, the
“worst performers.” Those with skin in the public school game
aren’t pleased,
as the Washington Post reports
:

“They [charter school providers] don’t answer to anyone,” said
Sean Johnson, the dean of students at Banneker [Elementary, one of
the public schools that has just closed], whose father attended the
school while growing up in the Black Pearl neighborhood. “The
charters have money and want to make more money. They have their
own boards, make their own rules, accept who they want and put out
who they want to put out.”

According to the Post, before the Recovery School
District took over in New Orleans, the elected Orleans Parish
School District was bankrupt and $71 million in federal money had
gone missing. The high school graduation rate was just 54.4 percent
before the state took over; by 2013 it was 77.6 percent. And while
those numbers compare the pre- and post-Katrina New Orleans
population, data limited to the post-Katrina  population is
improving too. In 2007 for example, only 23 percent of students
were at grade level for math. That’s up to 57 percent. In the
meantime, while the Recovery School District is about to have just
90 employees, the failing Orleans Parish School District had more
than 7,000 before the state took over. It may be more difficult now
to use the public education system for personal enrichment as a
jobs program, but the system should also be working a lot better
for actual students as it’s supposed to.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1wtb5Ka
via IFTTT

Peter Suderman on Why the VA Is Not a Model Health System

A damning report released
by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Inspector General will
likely leave Democrats and their liberal allies clamoring for
reforms to the government run health system for those who have
served in the military. The report found that workers in the
Phoenix VA network systematically manipulated wait time data,
leaving thousands of military veterans waiting for medical
appointments, and some 1,700 stuck in limbo after being left off
the waiting list entirely. The average initial wait time for a
primary care appointment in the Phoenix VA system was 115 days—a
far cry from both the system’s 14-day goal and the 24 days Phoenix
officials had reported. 

Until recently, Democrats have not been shy about expressing
their feelings about the VA health care system. For years they have
been telling us that it’s great—a model system from which the rest
of the nation’s health care systems could learn a thing or two


The ongoing VA scandal over falsified records
, and the deadly
long wait times for care that appear to have been the result,
strongly suggests that their praise is misplaced: Veterans are not
safe and sound within the fully government-run system, its quality
control leaves much to be desired, and its lengthy wait times are
not a fictitious prediction but an all-too-grim reality.

In other words, it’s hardly a triumphant, model health care
system, writes Peter Suderman. Even if there were no scandal at
all, the VA wouldn’t be a system worth emulating.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1rkXfcB
via IFTTT

Third Tailing Treasury Auction Concludes This Week’s Bond Issuance

Moments ago, the Treasury department concluded its auction activity for the week with the issuance of $29 billion in 7 Year Notes (Cusip WN6), which in keeping with the prior two – 2 and 5 Year – auctions earlier in the week, also had a modest tail: the bond priced at a 2.010% yield (73.9% allocation) compared to a When Issued of 2.009%. Then again, considering the big drop in yield from April, when the same auction priced at 2.32% this is perhaps not too surprising.  Notably, this was the first 7 Year auction tail since December, and is once again notable considering the overall strength of the secondary bond market.

The internals of the auction were stronger than the tail indicated, with the Bid To Cover virtually unchanged in the last three months, at 2.60, and just above the 2.56 TTM average. Directs ended up with 24.09% of the auction, picking up 5% from last month’s 19.09 and just above the recent auction average. This came at the expense of Indirect takedown dropping from 49.91% to 40.36%, the lowest since November, and also below the TTM average of 43.1%. Finally this means that Dealers we left holding 35.55% of the auction modestly below the 36.4% TTM average, however above last month’s 31.01%. As in prior months expect the bulk of the Dealer allotment to be quickly flipped back to the Fed.

Finally, the secondary bond market appears to have looked at the auction results, shrugged, and continued grinding higher to levels not seen since last summer.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/RGrE4L Tyler Durden

Meet Directive 3025.18 Granting Obama Authority To Use Military Force Against Civilians

While the “use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,The Washington Times uncovering of a 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans. As one defense official proclaimed, “this appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens.” Meet Directive 3025.18 and all its “quelling civil disturbances” totalitarianism…

As The Washington Times reports,

Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”

 

“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.

 

“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.

 

The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”

A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.

“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.

 

Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.

There is one silver lining (for now)…

“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.

And the full Directive is below…

Dod




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1o0Gqht Tyler Durden

Seattle Cops Suing Over DOJ Use-of-Force Rules

north precinctMore than 100 cops in Seattle
filed a lawsuit
yesterday against the Department of Justice
(DOJ), Attorney General Eric Holder, the local U.S. attorney, and
Seattle’s recently elected mayor, Ed Murray. They allege that new
use-of-force rules, instituted after the DOJ found a pattern or
practice of the excessive use of force, are unrealistic and
paralyze officers in the street, causing a “bold, new disregard for
police authority in the streets of Seattle.”

As a consequence, the lawsuit alleges, cops are reluctant to do
proactive police work and hesitant about responding to back up
calls, worrying that they could fact disciplinary charges. The new
use-of-force rules call for physical coercion to be a last resort
for police and tell cops to use the minimum amount of force
necessary to do their jobs. What cops do before using force, for
example escalating or trying to de-escalate a situation, is also
taken into account to judge whether the use of force was
justified.

Given the admission in the lawsuit that cops aren’t doing their
jobs because they’re not sure they can follow the rules, perhaps
its unsurprising the Seattle police union did not endorse it. Most
of the officers in the lawsuit are from the North precinct. When
they tried to collect signatures elsewhere in the department, they
were stopped by their commanders, and
the Seattle Times reports:

Ron Smith, [police union] SPOG’s president, said of the officers
who filed suit, “I knew they were unhappy. I knew they were
contemplating this action. I met with them to hear their concerns
at their request, back in March. I didn’t hear back from them
again.”

Smith said he gave the group “a conduit” to the Community Police
Commission, created as part of the consent decree, and that they
shared their concerns with the commission.

“I assumed they were going to get the policy changed in the
areas of concern,” Smith said. “I would like to say the policy is
overly broad, poorly written and somewhat confusing. However, I
believe the policy could have been changed with collaboration with
the Community Police Commission.”

The union doesn’t necessarily back the rules imposed after the
DOJ found widespread use-of-force abuse in the department, it just
opposes getting them changed via lawsuit. It would be bad press. As
the mayor pointed out, Seattle police have these mandated rules “in
part because of a disturbing pattern of unnecessary use of force
and other forms of unconstitutional policing.”

The cops filing suit believe they have the Constitution on their
side, because the Constitution, according to the lawsuit, “does not
permit judges, or in this case DOJ and its Monitor, to look back in
perfect hindsight, from the safety of their chambers or offices, to
second-guess what patrol officers actually faced at the moment and
know from real experience on the streets,”

The lawsuit’s lead plaintiff, an Officer Robert Mahoney, was
suspended without pay for 30 days in 2009 after being accused of
forcibly kissing an 18-year-old cadet. He denied kissing her and
was suspended for unprofessional conduct. The 30-day unpaid
suspension was apparently the toughest disciplinary action the
police chief could’ve taken short of termination. Mahoney was also
found by the police chief to have been dishonest, which could have
resulted in termination. Instead, a civil service commission threw
out that charge even as it upheld the finding of unprofessional
conduct. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1po40ss
via IFTTT

Couple Fined $746 for the Crime of Feeding Homeless People in Florida Park

It is a well known historical trend that as discontent and dissent spread within society, the power structure will look to demonize an unpopular or weak minority in order to deflect frustrations away from the true culprit, the power structure itself. Many feared in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that Muslims would serve as such a scapegoat, and indeed in many ways this occurred, although not to the extent that many feared. In my opinion, it is homeless people that are being increasingly being demonized and treated as subhuman. I think that if we want to see how the state and crony corporate status quo will treat everyone in the future, all you have to do is look at the current “war on the homeless.”

If you think about, the homeless actually serves as the perfect scapegoat for a former American middle class slowly being driven into serfdom. Still completely mesmerized by the religion of consumerism, how is a population losing their freedom and financial well-being supposed to feel better about themselves. The easy answer is to look at an even more destitute class and treat them like the “elites” treat everyone else. Like a superfluous and unfortunate outgrowth of humanity.

I strongly believe that is equally important to show compassion for the least fortunate of society as it is to fight against the incredibly corrupt establishment. Failing to do so, in many ways makes you no better than them.

From ThinkProgress:

After feeding the hungry in a Daytona Beach park every weekend for more than a year, it’s just as easy to imagine Chico and Debbie Jimenez given a ticker-tape parade as what they actually got: a slew of citations and a permanent ban from the park.Chico and Debbie Jimenez, a husband and wife team, aren’t handing out food in the Florida heat every Wednesday because of a court order or for a paycheck. They do it because they believe helping the poor is their religious duty.

Every Wednesday, the Jimenezes feed more than a hundred people a hearty lunch with dishes of chicken patties, macaroni salad, and fresh vegetables, among others. The meals are entirely funded by private donations and staffed with volunteers.

However, Daytona Beach is one of a handful of cities that enacted ordinances barring individuals from serving food in public. Last week, nearly a half-dozen police officers showed up at Manatee Island Park, where a long line of people had queued to get a meal, and served citations to the Jimenezes and volunteers.

According to the group’s Facebook page, Chico and Debbie, along with four volunteers, were each given multiple 2nd degree misdemeanor citations. The fines totaled $373 per person, $2,238 for the group. The police also permanently banned the group from Manatee Island Park. “We both have made a lot of good friends in the park and are devastated that we are banned the Manatee Park forever,” Debbie wrote. “I am heartbroken.”

Can’t arrest a single banker, but police sure are good at stopping citizens from feeding the hungry. Sick.

continue reading

from A Lightning War for Liberty http://ift.tt/1jx3GQ8
via IFTTT

Thoughts on the Bond Market Conundrum

This year’s bond market rally remains among the most significant surprises of the year.  This is especially true for the US Treasury market, which, even if G-Zero hypothesis is valid, remains the critical global benchmark.  Fed tapering was widely expected to push up US yields.  Instead, they haven fallen.  The 10-year yield is off 60 bp this year,and nearly half of that decline has been recorded over the past month. Moreover, the US market rally has taken place amid a tick up in both core and headline measure of consumer prices.

There are many narratives being constructed as journalist; analysts and investors seek to explain this unexpected phenomenon.   While there are many interesting hypotheses, there is a dearth of evidence.  For example, talk of central bank purchases or lengthening maturities is possible, but the data is simply not available to verify or falsify such claims.  The latest TIC data is more March, and foreign officials were net sellers of both bills and bonds. 

Other hypothesis, like speculators, were caught wrong-footed, and the rally in the US Treasury market is a function of their short-covering, is simply contradicted by the facts.  Look at the recent Commitment of Traders report for speculative positioning in the futures market.  In the week that ended May 20, the gross short speculative position in the US 10-year Treasury futures contract rose by 26.1k contracts to 529.4k contracts (each one with a notional value of $100k).  As of late February, the gross short position stood at 346k contracts.  Their current holdings are the most since late 2004/early 2005.  Rather than reduce short positions, the bears have sold into the rally.

For their part, the bulls see more life in the rally.  They added 10.4k contracts to lift their gross long position to 436k contracts.  This is the most since last May.  Trend followers and momentum traders have been rewarded as yields have continued to fall. 

There may be something with duration extensions.  Due to the US Treasury auctions and the quarterly refunding, uncommon for the new supply of long-dated note and bonds to prompt industry indices (benchmarks) to lengthen duration.  Money managers who track such indices also lengthen duration.   Reading the entrails of recent auctions, some see evidence for this. 

There has been some talk of investors switching from European bonds to Treasuries recently.  It is difficult to verify it, but the decline of the euro is consistent with this.  Consider that the bigger rally in German bunds over Treasuries.  This had seen the US premium over Germany widen to 120 bp, which is the upper end that is has offered since 1990.  It has tested this level several times since mid-April and most recently on May 19. 

Bring in an international dimension is important.  There is a strong possibility of that the ECB will take unorthodox action next week.  In anticipation of this, some investors bought European bonds, which, in turn, may make US Treasuries more attractive.  In addition, the Bank of England has tried to convince investors that its rates can also be kept lower for longer.  Many in the market expect the BOJ ultimately to have to provide more stimulus if it is going to achieve the 2% inflation target. 

Another dimension is the regulatory environment.  Banks are being forced to raise capital ratios.  Many banks are increasing their sovereign bond holdings.  As the month of May draws to a close, the Federal Reserve is still buying more long terms securities than it was when QE3+ was first announced in September 2012.  This is taking place in the context of a sharp fall in the US budget deficit.  

This speaks to the relative shortage of Treasuries, but also of other core bonds, like German bunds.  Given portfolio optimiszation strategies and the desire to have core European bonds in global portfolios, there are not a sufficient amount of German bunds.  This forces some large pools of capital, including central banks, to by French bonds as reasonable facsimiles (with the understanding that France, despite it economic and political challenges, remains at the core).  

Back in the mid-noughts, Fed Chairman Greenspan identified a conundrum:  Why are US bond yields falling even though the Federal Reserve was raising short-term rates?  There  were various answers provided, but ultimately none proved very satisfying.  Bernanke, as a Fed governor, suggested, that it was due to surplus savings from Asia and the oil exporters, who did not have the capacity to absorb their own savings.  We now know that European investors were also large buyers of US long-term assets. 

The doom-and-gloom camp warned that QE was going to spark an inflation crisis.  It has not.  Many of the same people argued that the Fed was the only buyer of Treasuries.  No one else would buy them.  This too has proved wide of the mark.    Evidence for most explanations seems to be sorely lacking, and there are likely to be more than one cause.  Many have cited activity by central banks and sovereign wealth funds, which seem all too often be the go-to-explanation.  We would place emphasis on private sector participants and technical and regulatory issues in the context of the Fed and BOJ’s ongoing significant purchases and anticipation of ECB action.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1pBei5H Marc To Market

Over A Thousand Soldiers Killed As Ukraine Fighting Escalates, Russian Media Reports

While one should take locally sourced news on the volatile situation in Ukraine, reported by media that is ideologically close to the source, with a grain of salt, Russian press agency RIA has generally had a good track record in reporting news regarding the Ukraine civil war. In which case if the following report of what may have happened overnight during the latest escalation of fighting in the eastern Ukraine city of Slavyansk, and which certainly doesn’t paint the Ukraine army in a favorable light, is even partially correct one can see why suddenly western media news coverage of the civil war in Ukraine has become somewhat sparse.

According to RIA, quoting Slaviansk people’s mayor Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, about 1,200 Ukrainian army soldiers have been killed during a special operation in Slaviansk, and eight helicopters and 15 armored vehicles were destroyed. Supposedly this includes the 1 helicopter whose crash was reported previously.

According to our information, the Ukrainian army has the following losses and damages: 1,200-1,300 people were killed, eight helicopters, 15 armored transport vehicles, and three [artillery] weapons destroyed. They are suffering huge losses. I’m speaking only about Slaviansk,” Ponomaryov said in an interview with the Latvian radio station Baltkom.

 

Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov confirmed Thursday the downing of a military helicopter had killed 14 Ukrainian servicemen, including a general. Soon after that, the Ukrainian National Guard clarified that 12, not 14 people were killed in the Mi-8 helicopter crash near Slaviansk.

 

The people’s mayor also noted that the self-defense forces of Slaviansk had lost about 200 people.

 

“About 200 were killed and 300 wounded,” Ponomaryov specified.

 

Ponomaryov also mentioned that several civilians died and eight people were wounded yesterday.

Meanwhile, as the media curtain descends, the fighting on the ground is escalating:

The troops involved in the military operation in southeastern Ukraine began firing mortars at Slaviansk Tuesday at around noon local time. Several private homes were razed, including houses in the villages of Andreevka and Sergeevka in the city’s suburbs. Several dozen people were killed.

 

Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian Duma’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, wrote Wednesday that the Kiev interim authorities are lying when they claim the residential areas in eastern Ukraine are not being targeted by troops.

 

The active phase of the military operation has now been suspended, Ukraine’s UNIAN news agency reported Thursday.

Perhaps the best indicator of how accurate this report is will come from the Kremlin itself: if indeed the fighting is as extensive as reported, Russia’s previously offer for humanitarian intervention will mutate from a polite offer to a stern warning about what the Russians will do.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1wsCgEO Tyler Durden

Here’s How HHS Nominee Sylvia Burwell Answers Questions About Obamacare

When Health and Human Services Secretary (HSS)
Kathleen Sebelius announced her pending resignation earlier this
year, President Obama nominated Sylvia Matthews Burwell, who
currently serves as the head of the White House Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), to be her replacement. A big part of
the HHS job is working on the Affordable Care Act—a.k.a.
Obamacare—and throughout her tenure, Sebelius has served as the
public face of the president’s health law.

Naturally, a lot of the questions surrounding Burwell’s
nomination, which is widely
expected
to make it through the Senate confirmation process,
have focused on how she would continue implementation of the
controversial health care overhaul.

We got some idea of how she’ll answer those questions in

Senate hearing
on her nomination earlier this month. Today we
got some additional sense from a paper follow up.

Following the hearing, Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Ted
Cruz (Texas) sent Burwell a list of pointed questions about the
health care law and how Burwell would handle some of its most
controversial provisions. Charging that Burwell had been “less than
forthcoming” in her original testimony, Sens. Lee and Cruz asked
about the law’s potentially bailout-like risk-mitigation
provisions, the details and current status of the administration’s
enrollment data, the role of the Independent Payment Advisory Board
(IPAB), and the administration’s legal authority to change the
law.

Burwell offers some sort of response to all of the questions,
but I doubt many people will find her follow-up answers much more
forthcoming than her initial hearing responses. Burwell is often
vague and doesn’t directly address every query. Instead, she sticks
pretty closely to the administration’s standard line on every
question and doesn’t tell us much we don’t already know.

Here’s a brief summary of the question topics and Burwell’s
responses, followed by the original
document
with Burwell’s full answers.

On Obamacare enrollment data—duplicates, non-payments,
and the expansion of health coverage:
Burwell cites
statements from health insurers saying that 80-90 percent of
sign-ups under the law have paid their premiums, but doesn’t
provide any additional data, saying that final information is not
available yet. She does promise to make available “accurate and
reliable data regarding premium payments” once federal health
officials have it. She says duplicates are a non-issue, but also
that HHS is still removing some from its lists. And she cites
survey data from RAND and Gallup to suggest that Obamacare is
helping to reduce the number of uninsured.

On the risk corridor program that has been dubbed a
potential bailout for health insurers:
Using language that
is very similar to what appeared in a recent regulation, Burwell
reiterates the administration’s position that the risk corridors
will be revenue neutral over the next three years. But she also
says that, if they are not, then the HHS secretary is bound to make
payments to insurers, and that HHS will do what is necessary to
find another source of funding, if appropriations are
available.

On the legal authority OMB relied on this year to make
Obamacare’s insurance subsidies not subject to the sequester—even
though a previous OMB report said they should be:
Burwell
says that OMB decided to make the law’s subsidies payable out of a
different fund than initially planned, one that’s not subject to
sequester cuts.

On how she would handle IPAB—Obamacare’s independent
cost-containment board—as HHS secretary:
Burwell does not
respond directly to the letter’s question about whether she’ll
commit to repealing the provision, but she says she share’s IPAB’s
goal of protecting against excessive cost growth in Medicare and
will work with Congress to make Medicare more efficient and
sustainable.

On the administration’s repeated delays of Obamacare’s
employer mandate, and whether she agrees with Hillary Clinton’s
1993 statement that without the provision, many employers would
cease offering coverage:
Burwell doesn’t really address
the specific questions asked here, but instead restates the
administration’s vague commitments to “common sense”
implementation, to making sure that “companies have clarity” about
the law, and that “individuals who face hardships…have the
flexibility and support they need.”

On whether HHS will provide Congress with a list of
Obamacare-participating health insurers who offer abortion
coverage, and whether she thinks Americans “should be informed”
about a plan’s abortion coverage provisions prior to
purchase:
Burwell’s answer here is extremely vague and
doesn’t address the questions directly. She says that
Healthcare.gov already provides information to consumers, that
plans have to provide an official benefits summary, and that if
confirmed, she’ll work to make sure consumers “have information
regarding the coverage” they get under Obamacare.

5 21 14 Burwell
Response
by PeterSuderman

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1hChjO4
via IFTTT