iftttwall

Authored by Mitch Nemeth via The Mises Institute,

In today’s political discourse, the minimum wage is frequently mentioned by the more progressive members of Congress. On a basic level, raising the minimum wage appears to be a sympathetic policy for low-income wage earners. Often kept out of the conversation, however, are the downstream effects of this proposal. The consensus among economists has always been that a price floor on “low-skilled labor” leads to unemployment “among the very people minimum wage legislation allegedly helps.” Surely those who retain their employment will reap the higher hourly pay but not without consequence to the rest of the “low-skilled” labor market.

Government-mandated minimum wage increases directly result in a higher price floor for hourly labor. The more indirect consequences include reductions in hours worked, layoffs, automation, operational changes, and loss of opportunity. In Economics 101, students are taught about trade-offs. A trade-off, as defined by the Business Dictionary, is “a technique of reducing or forgoing one or more desirable outcomes in exchange for increasing or obtaining other desirable outcomes in order to maximize the total return.” We incur trade-offs every day, such as the decision to buy dinner from a restaurant for $10 or to eat our holiday leftovers. Businesses incur trade-offs as well.

For example, let’s consider your local grocery store. The grocer may employ ten people, including one manager and nine employees. The manager makes well over the current minimum wage, but six of the nine other employees make the current minimum wage. If the current minimum wage is increased from $7.25 to $12.50 per hour, the rate of increase is 72.4 percent. While this increase may sound reasonable from the perspective of some readers, this is a large increase given the relatively low profit margins in this industry. What are the downstream effects?

The employer may either reduce the hours worked for employees or lay off staff. Several things result:

• Those who are not laid off will reap the benefits of a higher minimum wage, but they will have to work harder to make up for less staff.

• Staff making a wage higher than the old minimum wage but lower than the new rate will also request that their wages be increased to distinguish them from their peers (those who retained their jobs at the higher minimum wage) and to compensate them for their skills.

• Those who are laid off will be forced to find other employment.

• There may be a lack of employment due to these employees being priced out of the market.

The Effects on Youth Employment

Meanwhile, rapid advancements in technology may result in fewer job opportunities when the cost of labor is higher. Think of your local Kroger’s self-checkout line or Chick-fil-A’s mobile-ordering application.

Not surprisingly, American Action Forum’s evidence indicates that minority youth may be the most negatively affected by wage price floors. Various studies have analyzed the impact of minimum wage increases, most of which have been gradual increases implemented over a period of years. In an EconTalk podcast with Russ Roberts, Jacob Vigdor shared his main findings about Seattle’s minimum wage increase: “First of all, the minimum wage did appear to raise wages. … That’s what we expected to see. But when we looked at employment, we actually saw a reduction.” Vigdor further mentions that hours worked decreased as wages went up.

The study showed that the amount of money paid in the low-wage labor market declined overall, or in the aggregate. The results varied depending on the level of experience of the worker; those with the most work experience came out ahead. Vigdor’s study shows that on average their paychecks were twenty dollars higher per week. But the biggest loss “in terms of much lower pay would be amongst the workers who hadn’t even entered the labor market yet when the minimum wage started to increase, because they were finding it harder to find any work at all.”

The key takeaway from Vigdor’s study was the minimum wage’s effect on workers who had yet to enter the labor market. In effect, the higher minimum wage created a barrier to entering the hourly labor market for those without experience. Who tends to lack experience? Young individuals and immigrants.

As any young individual seeking an internship or their first job knows, the hardest thing about the search is having sufficient experience. Experience means that the individual needs less training and can be productive on the first day. Businesses understand that “on-the-job training is an investment, and at $15 an hour that investment doesn’t make sense from the business owner’s perspective.” This investment makes even less sense when it is understood that the teenager will only work for a few months and then leave, a dilemma that many employers face during summer and winter breaks.

The Employment Policies Institute addresses teen unemployment in an article titled “The Teen Unemployment Crisis: Questions and Answers.” It notes that one of the goals of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is to “protect the educational opportunities of minors.” Problematically, increasing the cost of labor disincentivizes companies from hiring workers, especially those who require training. Additionally, as technology rapidly advances, easily automated functions may become obsolete for workers. Policymakers must consider the interests of ensuring a viable labor market for our nation’s youth while promoting policies that incentivize businesses to pay decent wages.

Although many teenagers may be predisposed to sympathize with progressive policies like minimum wage increases, they ought to understand the larger implications of such proposals. Markets can withstand gradual change, but they may be unable to adequately adjust to steep increases in the cost of labor. In New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, US Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis famously described how a “state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country”; Justice Brandeis coined the phrase “laboratories of democracy.”  Twnety-nine states and the District of Columbia, as of 2019, have experimented with minimum wage increases. But studies have demonstrated that these progressive “successes” do not come without unintended consequences.

Though it might sound hard to believe, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy insisted during what we imagine was a hastily-arranged appearance on “the Rachel Maddow Show” Thursday night that Iranian General Qasem Suleimani could be “the most significant foreign political leader the United States has ever assassinated.”

Murphy, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who has long had designs on joining the Democrats’ Congressional leadership, was likely invited to appear on the show by its producers after news of the assassination, which took place early Friday morning (local time) near the Baghdad International Airport.

A statement released by the Pentagon after news of the attack broke claimed Suleimani was “actively developing plans” to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq when a two-car convoy that he was traveling in was targeted in a drone strike.

During his brief appearance via phone, Murphy told Maddow that “there’s no doubt that Qasim Suleimani was an enemy of the United States…the question tonight is whether Suleimani is a greater threat to the United States as the functional head of the Quds force, or as a maryr.”

He also warned about Iran’s ability to retaliate against US assets in the region.

“The danger here is of course that we are going to get into a conflict in the region that will ultimately accrue to the detriment of US national security interests no matter how we feel about the fact that Suleimani is dead this evening. They have the capability to launch assassination attempts right back at US political leaders, and their proxy forces can threaten US forces and Israel itself throughout the region.”

“They can end up spilling into a set of consequences that ultimately do a lot more damage to US national security interests than the assassination itself cures.”

“There are plenty of grave consequences for our relationship with Iraq, This is a very dangerous moment, this could be the most significant political leader that the US has ever assassinated.”

Murphy also threw in some criticisms, claiming “you can’t do this with Congressional authorization” (though it looks like President Trump just did) and some pundits have been discussing the possibility of the House using this as the basis for a third article of impeachment.

Murphy, of course, wasn’t the only Democratic power player to weigh in on the assassination. The four remaining top presidential contenders have all published comments essentially saying the same thing: That Qasem was a bad actor in the region, but that Trump’s decision to do something about it was still wrong.

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s statement got the most attention after he accused Trump of tossing “a stick of dynamite into a tinder box”.

My statement on the killing of Qassem Soleimani. pic.twitter.com/4Q9tlLAYFB

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) January 3, 2020

Elizabeth Warren warned Soleimani was a “murder, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans” but added that his assassination will “increase the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict.”

Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war.

— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) January 3, 2020

And Bernie Sanders accused Trump of breaking his promise to end America’s “forever wars.”

“Trump’s dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars. Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one,” he said in a tweet, while also managing to bring up the fact that he voted against the War in Iraq.

When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the region. That fear unfortunately turned out to be true.

The U.S. has lost approximately 4,500 brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we’ve spent trillions.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 3, 2020

Trump’s dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars.

Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 3, 2020

As for Pete Buttigieg, he hadn’t yet tweeted a statement on the attack as of 8 am ET.

Fortunately, Murphy’s brief appearance on Maddow isn’t the only reason we’re talking about Murphy this morning.

In a hilarious example of Dems committing flagrant acts of hypocrisy while condemning the Trump Administration for carrying out such a bold and potentially “game changing” attack, conservatives are pointing out that Murphy – a Democratic Senator who is known for his hawkish foreign policy views – was practically begging for an attack like this just two days ago in a tweet that he and his social media team have somehow not yet deleted.

Two days apart. It really is sad what partisanship is doing to people.

First @ChrisMurphyCT complains that we are impotent and just praying for the bad guys to go away, then he declares it was wrong for us to take out the worst bad guy in the region.

Shameless. pic.twitter.com/yrX2UfOswf

— (((AG))) (@AGHamilton29) January 3, 2020

What a difference two days during a holiday-shortened week can make…

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

In that mercifully quiet week between Christmas and New Years, I re-watched Ken Burns’ documentary of the first Civil War, in contemplation of a possible second. What an almighty bloodbath that was. Thousands butchered in minutes in one battle after another, heads and limbs flying, men turned inside-out, and horses, too. The blue and the gray were hostage to their battlefield tactics and didn’t seem to learn from the insane extravagance of souls wasted in massed assaults against massed artillery again and again and again. The population of the whole nation (Confederacy included) was 31 million in 1860 and the war killed two percent of that, almost entirely young men.

Another impression left by that documentary was the startling beauty of the countryside in that day, and of the little towns that dotted that landscape where all the carnage and horror played out. Not a strip-mall in the whole gorgeous panorama. The rolling fields neatly fenced in the stillness of a summer’s day. A peaceful tranquility we today cannot even imagine. Everything human-scaled and so many buildings graced with beauty deliberately made: pediments, steeples, cupolas, columns, and swags. Walt Disney could not have imagined a more tender and appealing place. The lyrical names of those towns are linked to rivers of blood: Shiloh, Spotsylvania, Missionary Ridge, Cold Harbor….

And the last impression accumulated over each installment was that this we did it to ourselves, and couldn’t seem to stop, just as today various parties to current events can’t seem to stop their provocations to a new episode of national domestic violence. This time it is the very government at war with itself, and so far the war is merely legalistic, the battles of lawyers — of which, one senses, we have far too many for our own good. The Department of Justice in particular is at war with itself, one faction in it refusing to cooperate with the other, hiding documents, trafficking in political muck, kluging up the works with deceptions, and still at it in the yet-unresolved case of General Flynn, which should have been thrown out of court months ago based on obvious prosecutorial malice.

Likewise, The New York Times, NBC News, and many other companies can’t seem to give up on their mendacious retailing of obvious falsehoods, in league with rogue government agencies. Their readers and followers learned nothing from the stunning failure of Robert Mueller’s long investigation to find any crimes, and most don’t even understand that the purpose of it was simply to antagonize the president while trying desperately to come up with ammunition against him for the next election — using all the resources of federal machinery. In other words, it was just a government-sponsored elaboration of the “opposition research” conjured up by Hillary Clinton’s Fusion GPS hirelings in 2016.

The bigger picture of all this chicanery is right out there to see for anyone really paying attention.

Mr. Obama and Hillary hijacked the most pernicious instruments of government — the CIA and FBI — to win the election, and then to overthrow the actual winner. Slowly slowly, they were found out, despite all the smoke they were blowing and hiding in. Barr & Durham have hardly said a thing about their efforts to unwind the massive hairball of subterfuge and ass-covering that is their purview. Yet, the particulars of what went on, and who did what, are now pinned to the wall. We know exactly what Christopher Steele was and how that all worked. We know how John Brennan played it and how James Clapper and Jim Comey went along with it, and took it further and deeper, and where Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe stepped in, and exactly how Mr. Mueller got roped in to front his operation — despite his mental incapacity. And we also know that Barack Obama approved of all that activity through 2016 into January 20, 2017.

When it comes into the courts some months from now, Brennan, Comey, and the rest will surely cop a plea that they were following Mr. Obama’s presidential instructions. The impeachment hysteria is an exact index of the rising fear of that coming finger-pointing. Mr. Obama has been drawn into the heart of this matter. His reputation will be destroyed — and with it, the Progressive agenda that he represented for two terms, and which still holds his party hostage as much as the battlefield tactics of 1864 held the armies of North and South hostage.

We have heard very little from Mr. Obama in recent months, and only a few squawks out of Hillary. The Lawfare shock troops are working feverishly in the background to invent new congressional chicanes to trap Mr. Trump, but their legal cleverness can’t overcome the weakness of their cause, just as the soldiering of Robert E. Lee and his generals could not overcome the tragic wrongfulness of fighting for slavery. A century and half from now, people in this land (whatever it is called by then) will say that coup against Mr. Trump was a valiant endeavor, just as people today will say that the Civil War of 1861 – 1865 was about some metaphysical truths above and beyond slavery.

Hillary is still on the loose and she still has many partisans in the ranks of government, and they are scheming desperately now to save their skins. I don’t believe that Mr. Obama actually commands any troops in this fight. He remains the mere symbol that he was from the very start, when the Democratic Party hoisted him out of obscurity as the grand prize for post-war liberalism. After the election, I think Mr. Trump was prepared to drop his wish to “lock her up.” But he has had three years to discover just how much malice was arrayed against him, and now he going to run her to ground.

Europe’s pool of negative-yielding government bonds declined in December to its smallest size since May, Tradeweb data showed on Thursday.

Trade optimism and the hopes central bankers can engineer a soft landing in the global economy in 1H20 have been some of the reasons behind the shrinking negative-yielding government bonds.

Eurozone government bonds quoted by Tradeweb showed negative yields fell to 4.14 trillion euros in December, which is about 52% of the total eight trillion-euro market. The latest figures are down from 57% in November.

In September, the negative-yielding government bonds surged to the highest level ever, at 5.63 trillion euros, or about 70% of all government bonds in Europe were negative.

As for the global pool of negative-yielding bonds, well, it peaked at around $15 trillion last year and has been estimated by Tradeweb to be around $12 trillion today.

And if the global recovery that markets have already priced in doesn’t materialize — then it’s likely that a mad-dash back into bonds could be seen, destined to increase the pool of negative-yielding government debt to new record levels. Perhaps that is what gold is expecting.

 

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

The threat posed by Iran-backed Hezbollah sleeper cells embedded in major American cities has once again come to the fore following the killing of Iran’s Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani.

Following last night’s assassination of the Iranian military leader, authorities in both New York and Los Angeles announced that they were ramping up security in readiness for possible revenge attacks on U.S. soil.

This is because Iran is known to have placed Hezbollah terrorist sleeper cells throughout not just Europe but the United States too.

Last year, the the criminal prosecution and conviction in New York of the Hezbollah operative Ali Kourani revealed that the terror outfit has already plotted to attack U.S. interests inside the country and is ready to activate if it considers the existence of either Hezbollah or Iran to be at stake.

Following the arrest of Kourani and another Hezbollah operative named Samer el-Debek, the U.S. intelligence community reversed its belief that Hezbollah was unlikely to attempt attacks within the U.S.

“It’s our assessment that Hezbollah is determined to give itself a potential homeland option as a critical component of its terrorism playbook,” said National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas Rasmussen.

Authorities in major U.S. cities are monitoring developments and ramping up security in preparation for any potential Iranian-backed terror attacks following the killing of Iran’s Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani.#WWIII https://t.co/Mtf1HPQrmp

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) January 3, 2020

“We in the intelligence community do in fact see continued activity on behalf of Hezbollah here inside the homeland,” he added.

Hezbollah has never directly attacked the U.S. homeland, but Kourani, working for the Hezbollah-controlled Islamic Jihad Organization, was confirmed to have been conducting surveillance of FBI and U.S. Secret Service offices, as well as a U.S. Army armory and John F. Kennedy International Airport, all in New York City.

“While living in the United States, Kourani served as an operative of Hezbollah in order to help the foreign terrorist organization prepare for potential future attacks against the United States,” said U.S. Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Demers.

In casing both JFK and Toronto’s Pearson International Airport, “Kourani told the FBI that he provided Hezbollah with details about security procedures, the uniforms worn by security officers, and whether the officers were armed. His surveillance, Kourani told the FBI, focused on exit points, security checkpoints, camera locations, baggage claim procedures, and what questions airport screeners asked passengers,” reported ForeignPolicy.com.

With the world now waiting for Iran’s response to Soleimani’s killing, we can only hope that it doesn’t come in the form of a massive Hezbollah-backed terror attack targeting a major American city.

*  *  *

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Nobody knows where they are coming from, or why they are there.

Back on Christmas we wrote about large, non-governmental drones flying in mysterious patterns in Colorado. Since then, sightings have only increased, despite there being no explanation as to why.

Local sheriff’s departments in regions of Nebraska and Colorado have been “bombarded” with reports of large drones with “blinking lights and wingspans of up to 6 feet” flying over rural towns and open fields, according to MSN News. The drones have even prompted a federal investigation – yet no one has been able to explain them. 

Missy Blackman, who saw three drones hovering over her farm outside Palisade, Neb said: “It’s creepy. I have a lot of questions of why and what are they, and nobody seems to have any answers.”

Sheriff James Brueggeman of Perkins County, Neb. saw the drones on patrol one night. He commented: “In terms of aircraft flying at night and not being identified, this is a first for me personally.”

He said he has heard rumblings of people wanting to shoot down a drone, but has urged residents to contact law enforcement instead. 

Brueggeman said: “I think it’s kind of a joke, but you have to remember the part of the country we live in. People here don’t like their privacy to be invaded.”

Dawn George, who lives near Wray, Colo. said: “They’re high enough where you couldn’t shoot one anyway, but they’re low enough that they’re a nuisance.” She says her dogs bark at the drones when they fly over. 

The drones are attracting attention at the same time the FAA proposed new regulations that would require most drones to be identifiable. A spokesman for the FAA, Ian Gregor, said the timing of the rule was coincidental, but also that the agency had opened an investigation into the “mystery” drone sightings. 

Gregor said: “Multiple F.A.A. divisions and government agencies are investigating these reports.”

Meanwhile, the drones have been the talk of rural Colorado and Nebraska. Sighting are increasing and so are the inquiries of witnesses and those in the area. Some have suggested simple answers, like a mapping operation or land survey, but many ask why those tasks would be undertaken at night. 

Senator Cory Gardner, Republican of Colorado said he would “closely monitor the situation.”

But regulations around drones are still fuzzy:

Unmanned drones, which have exploded into popular usage in recent years and can be used for everything from mapping to photography to farming, can be difficult to track. Operators of all but the smallest drones have been required to register with the federal government since 2015, but there is no straightforward, legal way for state and local officials to identify the owner of a particular drone or to track that drone’s location.

Reggie Govan, a former chief counsel to the F.A.A. who now teaches at the University of Pennsylvania Law School said: “Like in many other areas of drone regulation, the statutory and regulatory framework is lagging the technology. It’s just that simple.”

Govan says the government has tracking tools to figure out where the drones are coming from, but the vast distance they fly over could make it difficult. Limits in drone detection have allowed rogue operators to approach the White House without raising alarms and even deploy homemade bombs in a Pennsylvania neighborhood, in one case. 

Michael Yowell, a sheriff’s captain in Lincoln County, Colo said: “Most people are very reasonable, and they say it could be somebody mapping or doing topography. But you can’t rule out what you don’t know.”

The sightings started in Northeast Colorado in mid December and have grown more widespread since then. Almost all sightings have occurred between sunset and 10PM, but they have occasionally been spotted during daylight hours. One witness said she looked at them through binoculars and saw no markings, just plain silver and white coloring. Captain Yowell tried to photograph the drones but couldn’t get a clear picture. 

Yowell said: “We want to know, at around 10 o’clock, when we start to lose visuals of these, which direction are they homing? Which way are they heading? We hope that’s how we can contact somebody on the ground.”

Residents like Dawn George are worried they may never get answers: “All the sudden, it’s just going to stop and we’re not going to have answers. And that’s very unsettling to a lot of people. It’s the fear of the unknown.”

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

According to new IRS documents for 2017 and 2018, people are fleeing Illinois in record numbers.

New IRS data confirms Record Number of Illinoisans Leave State as Tax Base Continues to Shrink.

The IRS has just released new domestic migration data for both 2017 and 2018 and it shows Illinoisans left the state in record numbers. In both years, Illinois lost more people and more taxable income than in any past year reported by the IRS.

The IRS data complements the new Census Bureau data that shows near-record out-migration of Illinoisans in 2019.

Grim Numbers

• Illinois lost more than 130,000 tax filers and their dependents in 2017 and another 88,000 in 2018. Illinois’ 2018 loss was the third worst in the country, with only California and New York losing more residents, 153,000 and 160,000, respectively.

• Illinois lost $6.8 billion in Adjusted Gross Incomes to net out-migration in 2017 and $5.6 billion in 2018. Illinois’ 2018 loss was the third worst in the country, with only California and New York losing more AGI, $8.0 billion and $9.6 billion, respectively.

• The three biggest gainers nationally in 2018 of residents and their incomes were Florida, Arizona and Texas. Florida was the biggest winner by far, gaining a net 115,000 people and $16 billion in AGI. Arizona gained 65,000 people and $3.5 billion in AGI. Texas gained 77,000 people and $3.4 billion in AGI.

• When measured on per capita basis, only New York lost more AGI than Illinois in 2018. Illinois lost $435 in AGI per person while New York lost $484 per person.

• The biggest per capita winners of AGI were Nevada, up $766 per person, Florida, up $762 per person, and Idaho, up $646 per person.

• Illinois’ neighbors suffered far smaller AGI losses than Illinois in 2018, ranging from a loss of $145 per person in Iowa to just $52 per person in Missouri.

Third Biggest Loser

• Domestic in-migrants to Illinois earned far less than the Illinois residents who left the state. The average AGI of those who left in 2018 was approximately $85,000, while those who entered the state had incomes of just $66,000.

• The wealth gap between residents leaving and coming to Illinois has more than tripled since 2000. In 2000, those moving into Illinois earned on average $5,000 less than those leaving Illinois. In 2018, the gap is now nearly $19,000.

Net Loser to 43 States

​

• Illinois was a net loser of people to 43 states in 2018, while it netted gains from just six states. The total gain from those six states, however, was trivial – just 667 net residents. In contrast, Illinois netted losses of 88,664 people to the other 43 states.

• Illinois’ biggest resident losses weren’t just to Florida and Texas, two of the nation’s biggest in-migration winners. Indiana and Wisconsin were the second and fourth largest net winners of Illinois’ residents.

• All of Illinois’ neighbors netted gains vs. Illinois. Indiana gained nearly 26,000 Illinois residents but gave up just 15,000 of its own. That left Indiana with a net gain of nearly 11,000 residents vis-a-vis Illinois. Wisconsin ended up with a net gain of more than 7,000 residents vs. Illinois. Kentucky, Iowa, Michigan and Missouri all netted gains of 1,200 to 2,900 residents vs. the Prairie State.

Any way the data is sliced, Illinois is chronically losing its population and its tax base. It is a national outlier along with New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. For full information on Illinois’ demographic and out-migration losses, see Wirepoints: Out-migration.

The outflow is particularly alarming given the state’s pension shortfall, which is already the highest in the nation. As the state’s population and tax base continue to shrink, the risk of insolvency for the state continues to rise.

And more tax hikes will only exacerbate the situation – Illinoisans already face the highest total tax burden in the nation, according to Kiplinger and Wallethub.

Illinois’ legislature shows no signs of pursuing the spending and pension reforms needed to make Illinois competitive again. Until that changes, expect the Illinois exodus to only get worse.

Thanks for Wirepoints for the discussion.

Escape Illinois: Get The Hell Out Now, We Are

On October 5, I announced Escape Illinois: Get The Hell Out Now, We Are

We are moving to Southern Utah this year. Going house hunting in February (will rent for a year) and we will sell this one rather than trying to rent it.

Property taxes are too much of a killer to keep it (as in ~$15,000 a year on a ~$400K home).

Yikes. Had enough.

Whether he is eating ice cream or not, Trump appears to be on a rampage to recreate the end of The Godfather.

Less than 24 hours after a US drone shockingly killed the top Iranian military leader, Qasem Soleimani, resulting in equity markets groaning around the globe in fear over Iranian reprisals (and potentially, World War III), the US has gone for round two with Reuters and various other social media sources reporting that US air strikes targeting Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units umbrella grouping of Iran-backed Shi’ite militias near camp Taji north of Baghdad, have killed six people and critically wounded three, an Iraqi army source said late on Friday.

Iraqi official media has also confirm that two vehicles were targeted north of Baghdad, carrying commanders of the pro-Iran militias in the PMUs.

Iraqi officials media now confirm that two vehicles were targeted north of Baghdad, carrying commanders of the pro-Iran militias in the PMUs. #iraq #QassemSuleimani

— Hassan Hassan (@hxhassan) January 3, 2020

Two of the three vehicles making up a militia convoy were found burned, a Reuters source said, as well as six burned corpses.

Asaib Ahl al-Haq media outlet releases photos shows the aftermath airstrikes on Hashd al-Shaabi vehicles near Taji.#Iraq pic.twitter.com/MO1yqnttjF

— Baxtiyar Goran (@BaxtiyarGoran) January 3, 2020

The strikes reportedly took place at 1:12 am local time.

Hezbollah’s Mayadeen confirms that an airstrike hit a moving target in Taji northern Iraqi capital of Baghdad.
—
Mayadeen was first media outlet that confirmed the death of Soleimani and Muhandis last night.#Iraq https://t.co/cwebUoxlzA https://t.co/j5R73kZpyv

— Baxtiyar Goran (@BaxtiyarGoran) January 3, 2020

According to unconfirmed reports, a US MQ-9 Reaper drone targeted a convoy carrying several high ranking officials of PMU (Hashd al-Shaabi) in Taji, North of Baghdad. The casualties are said to be mostly among members of the IRGC-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq. It is not known whether Qais al-Khazali is dead or alive.

#BREAKING: #USAF‘s MQ-9 Reaper drone targeted a convoy carrying several high ranking officials of #PMU (Hashd al-Shaabi) in #Taji, North of #Baghdad. Casualties are mostly among members of #IRGC backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq. It is not known whether Qais al-Khazali is dead or alive! pic.twitter.com/CGGebcLn0M

— Babak Taghvaee (@BabakTaghvaee) January 3, 2020

Separate reports claim that Shibl al-Zaidi, a commander of Kataib Imam Ali brigades, an Iranian-backed militia and the PMU’s 40th Brigade, is among those the six who were killed in the strike.

Not confirmed yet, but it is reported Shibl al-Zaydi, secretary general of #IRGC backed Kata’ib al-Imam Ali (#PMU‘s 40th Brigade) is among whom are targeted by the #USAF in this airstrike at #Taji, North of #Baghdad tonight! pic.twitter.com/SteN0vg5iB

— Babak Taghvaee (@BabakTaghvaee) January 3, 2020

Al-Zaidi was close (see on left) to Soleimani & Abu Mahdi al-Mohandis, both killed 24hrs ago.

That said there are conflicting reports, with some noting that a Twitter account allegedly belonging to al-Zaidi tweeted that he is alive after the attack.

The twitter account, who we presume is run by al-Zaydi, tweeted this out saying they aren’t dead: https://t.co/6Mh24mgjOO

— Strategic Sentinel (@StratSentinel) January 3, 2020

Additionally, Hamad al-Jazairi, the deputy leader of Saraya al-Khorasani, was also reprotedly among those killed tonight.

In separate, unconfirmed reports, yet another airstrike is said to have targeted a convoy in Iraq’s Nineveh governorate.

Claims of another strike targeting a convoy in Nineveh Governorate https://t.co/04l5lrOggM

— David A. Daoud (@DavidADaoud) January 3, 2020

And so, with the US laying death and carnage from the sky across Iraq, reactions have ranged from the sarcastic and laconic…

Oh, I thought last night’s peace-loving strike was supposed to prevent additional warfare https://t.co/Z2S3WQaz7L

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 3, 2020

I guess the de-escalation of last night’s air strike wasn’t enough to fully de-escalate and stop war, so today the US has ordered another airstrike at a top Iraqi militia commander to further de-escalate and stop even more war.

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) January 3, 2020

… to the objectively concerned, with some wondering how much further is Iraq going to let US operate freely in country before they decide to kick their assets out? These airstrikes really make the Iraqi government look weak like they can’t deal with their problems by themselves, which may or may not be true, but the point stands.”

How much further is #Iraq going to let US operate freely in country before they decide to kick their assets out? These airstrikes really make the Iraqi government look weak like they can’t deal with their problems by themselves, which may or may not be true, but the point stands.

— Strategic Sentinel (@StratSentinel) January 3, 2020

Of course, the other point is when and how will Iran respond, as it is now clear that if Tehran does nothing it will only embolden the US to pick off its top generals one at a time, while any substantial escalation could ignite a regional war with even more dire consequences.

Authored by Kyle Smith via NationalReview.com,

Former national security adviser Ben Rhodes, the architect of the Iran nuclear deal, purposely structured the JCPOA as a treaty that was not a treaty because he and his boss, President Obama, had no intention whatsoever of doing with the JCPOA what the Constitution mandates for all treaties, which is to obtain the approval of two-thirds of the Senate.

Rhodes and Obama simply rammed through what was in effect a treaty without seeking the approval of even one Senator.

Yet here is Rhodes after the strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the secretive Iranian Quds force that sows mischief (and kills Americans, and ordered the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad) outside Iran’s borders.

Congress has to assert itself and determine exactly what our Iran policy is. Did we mean to do this? Do we have any plan for what comes next? What is the legal basis for all this?

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) January 3, 2020

Rhodes’s tweet is incomprehensible unless one or both of the following two conditions applies:

1) Rhodes is very, very stupid;

2) Rhodes thinks one set of laws and principles applies to presidents he likes and another set applies to presidents he doesn’t like.

Congress gets to “assert itself” in the Trump Administration’s foreign policy? When Rhodes was in charge of President Obama’s foreign policy (a documentary showed him bossing around Secretary of State John Kerry), he not only didn’t solicit Congress’s opinion on Iran policy but took extraordinary action purposely to cut the Senate out of a matter of which it should have had oversight.

Moreover, as David French at The Dispatch points out this morning, the strike that killed Soleimani actually was authorized under the Constitution because (as Rhodes may or may not remember) Congress did approve of U.S. military actions in Iraq. Those actions were re-authorized by the Obama Administration.

Iranian-backed militias attacked U.S. troops lawfully present in a combat zone under valid legal authorities. Moreover, America’s military response isn’t limited to immediate self-defense or tit for tat. It can act to remove the threat. That threat includes enemy commanders. /4

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 3, 2020

Whether the Soleimani hit was a good idea is worth debating, but President Trump did have the proper authority to order it.

US freight railroads have long been used as a barometer of the country’s economic health, continue to show declines in traffic, suggesting the industrial recession could persist into 2020. 

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) published a new report that shows US weekly rail traffic for the week ending December 21 was down 10.5% to 507,589 carloads and intermodal units compared with the same week last year.

Total carloads for the week were 245,048 carloads, down 11.5% compared with the same week in 2018, while weekly intermodal volume was down 9.5% to 262,541 containers and trailers. 

The AAR tracks ten carload commodity groups on a weekly basis — with Petroleum and Petroleum Products and Other segments showed marginal growth over the week as all other segments including Chemicals; Coal; Farm Products excl. Grain, and Food; Forest Products, Grain, Metallic Ores and Metals; Motor Vehicles and Parts; and Nonmetallic Minerals registered declines. 

For the first 51 weeks of 2019, US rail traffic across all segments was 12,780,814 carloads, down 4.8% from the same period last year; and 13,550,432 intermodal units, down 5.1% from last year. Total rail traffic in the first 51 weeks was 26,331,246 carloads and intermodal units, a 5.9% drop over last year.

Canadian and Mexican railroads also reported traffic declines for the week and in the first 51 weeks as both countries are teetering if not already in a recession. 

North American rail volume for the week was down 9.2% to 350,256 carloads over the same week last year, and 348,566 intermodal units, down 8.2 % over the previous year. Total combined weekly rail traffic in North America was 698,822 carloads and intermodal units, down 8.7%. 

North American rail volume for the first 51 weeks of 2019 was 35,963,299 carloads and intermodal units, down 3.9% compared with 2018.

In a separate report, AAR described how 400,000 railcars currently sit in storage amid slumping rail demand. 

But it’s not just rail traffic that is tumbling, class-8 truck orders collapsed last month, all of this is a symptom of an industrial recession that shows no signs of abating into 2020.