DoJ Blasts Berkeley: “Will Not Stand Idly By” As College Crushes Free Speech

Authored by Rob Shimshock via The Daily Caller,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a statement of interest Thursday in a campus free speech lawsuit against the University of California, Berkeley.

“This Department of Justice will not stand by idly while public universities violate students’ constitutional rights,” said Rachel Brand, the DOJ’s Associate Attorney General, in the press release announcing the statement.

Young America’s Foundation and the Berkeley College Republicans allege that the university adopted a double standard with regard to free speech and particularly high-profile college speakers, according to a press release obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

 

The plaintiffs claim that Berkeley’s “high-profile speaker policy” gave the university license to arbitrarily set curfews, restrictive security costs, and inconvenient venues.

 

While the DOJ’s statement of interest does not mean that it is taking an official stance on the merits of the case, it does mean that the department will monitor the situation from afar with broad authority.

“The allegations made by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are unfounded,” Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof told TheDCNF.

Berkeley does not discriminate against speakers invited by student organizations based upon viewpoint. The campus is committed to ensuring that student groups may hold events with speakers of their choosing, and it has expended significant resources to allow events to go forward without compromising the safety or security of the campus.”

However, Brand did not exonerate Berkeley in a Thursday Fox News op-ed.

“A new policy at Berkeley, for example, imposes a curfew, security measures, and location restrictions for events that administrators decide are likely to ‘interfer[e] with other campus functions or activities,’” Brand wrote.

It doesn’t require much creativity to turn this policy into a heckler’s veto. If you disagree with a speaker about to visit campus, simply declare his views offensive and threaten to riot, and the speaker will be sidelined.”

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2GjIhOr Tyler Durden

Here Are 5 Criminal Justice Reform Measures That Americans Say They Support

JusticeA new poll shows that Americans really do want to make the criminal justice system much less harsh in several ways. But what does that actually look like?

The survey, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies on behalf of the Justice Action Network, asked 800 registered voters their opinions about mandatory minimum sentences, bail reform, criminal background checks, and alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent criminals. The good news is that Americans across the political spectrum overwhelmingly support reforms to make justice system less harsh to make it easier for those released from jail to return to a normal life. The poll found that 85 percent of Americans believe that the goal of the criminal justice system should be rehabilitation, not punishment.

The Justice Action Network, a group devoted to creating transpartisan coalitions for criminal justice reforms, didn’t craft these questions randomly. Many of the queries were directly connected to specific legislative pushes:

1. Mandatory Minimums

A full 87 percent of those polled support replacing mandatory minimum sentences in nonviolent cases with sentencing ranges, so judges can make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Mandatory minimums are among the most corrosive consequences of the drug war, sending nonviolent offenders to prison for decades. Much of the mercy President Barack Obama and his Department of Justice offered when commuting federal sentences during his second term was directed toward those who had been stuck in prison for mandatory minimum drug sentences.

Yet even as Americans are increasingly aware that mandatory minimums have been putting away their neighbors, not scary violent drug lords, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is calling for harsher prosecutions and states are adding new drugs to mandatory-minimum lists to satisfy demands that they do something about opioids.

If Americans really do object to mandatory minimums, they should take a look at the federal Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, sponsored by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). The law bill would reduce the scope of mandatory minimum sentence demands for nonviolent federal drug offenders and would give judges more leeway. The bill has struggled under resistance from drug warriors and law enforcement groups.

2. Cash Bail Reform

Should people who get arrested have to front money to be released if they aren’t a threat? According to the poll, 85 percent want to replace cash bail with supervised releases, especially in cases where the defendant does not pose a threat to society.

Cash bail reform will likely be a major issue this year and beyond. Last year New Jersey all but eliminated cash bail entirely and switched to a system of pre-trial assessments and supervised releases. This month Alaska joined them. There are pushes in cities and states across the country to change the pre-trial system so that nonviolent people aren’t detained simply because they cannot afford bail. Yesterday a California judge ruled that it’s unconstitutional for the state to set bail so high that defendants cannot pay, unless they’re dangerous.

On the federal level, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) have teamed up to try to create a fund to help states research replacements for cash bail. The Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act would set aside $10 million in grants to assist in implementing new systems of pre-trial assessments.

3. Suspending Driver’s Licenses

Another set of reforms would curtail states’ tendency to suspend driver’s licenses as a form of punishment. This can make it harder for people, particularly poor people, to make ends meet legally—an absurd approach to fighting crime. States often suspend driver’s licenses for drug-related crimes even when the arrest had nothing to do with driving while impaired. That’s not entirely the states’ own choice: Federal law mandates that they do so or lose some of their Department of Transportation funding.

In the Justice Action Network poll, 73 percent say that states should be able to decide whether to suspend licenses without having to risk federal funding. A bill introduced last year by Reps. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.) would do exactly that. The Better Drive Act may be one of the shortest bills ever written. It simply repeals the part of the federal code that requires states to suspend licenses for drug convictions or lose transportation funding. That’s it.

4. Expunging Records for Young Adults’ Low-Level Crimes

In the poll, 79 percent think people under the age of 25 should have an opportunity after completing probation to expunge a first-time, low-level conviction for a nonviolent crime.

Thanks to a law passed in 1984 under President Ronald Reagan, adults under the age of 21 already have this option. The Renew Act, sponsored by Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D–N.Y.) and Trey Gowdy (R–S.C.) would increase the eligibility age for expungement to 25.

5. Government Jobs and Criminal Background Checks

The poll has 65 percent agreeing that people who apply for public sector jobs should get the chance to explain their qualifications and skills before having their criminal history examined.

This is a component of the “Ban the Box” movement, which aims to either convince or require employers to wait until later in the hiring process to consider whether a job candidate’s criminal background should disqualify him or her from consideration. The idea here is that employers often remove ex-cons from the hiring pool as soon as they know of their past without even evaluating whether the crimes should disqualify them.

This question focused on public sector jobs. There are House and Senate versions of legislation that would require the federal agencies and federal contractors wait until they’ve extended a potential employment offer to a person before submitting them to a criminal background check. There are a bunch of exceptions, of course, for those who apply for jobs in law enforcement, national security, or positions that involve access to sensitive or classified information.

The House version of the bill is sponsored by Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). The Senate version is sponsored by Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.).

Note that every single criminal justice reform bill mentioned here has bipartisan sponsors. If people support reform as much as this poll suggests, there are lawmakers on each side of the aisle who agree.

Read the rest of the poll results here.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2DGbHbV
via IFTTT

Trump Ups Defense Budget By 13% – “Can’t Have World’s Best Military On An Obama Budget”

With Washington having seemingly turned its turret away from ‘terror’ and back to “revisionist, authoritarian” regimes like ‘Russia and China’, the Military-Industrial Complex is ‘gonna need a bigger budget’ – a 13% bigger $716 billion one by 2019.

US military spending already dwarfed the rest of the world…

But, while presenting the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS2018) of the United States on Friday at the Johns Hopkins University, Secretary of Defense James Mattis painted a picture of a dangerous world in which U.S. power – and all of the supposed “good” that it does around the world – is on the decline.

“Our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare – air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace,” he said. “And it is continually eroding.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/20180124_us2.jpg

And now, as The Washington Post reports, President Trump is expected to ask for $716 billion in defense spending when he unveils his 2019 budget next month, a major increase that signals a shift away from concerns about rising deficits, U.S. officials said.

The proposed budget is a victory for Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who recently unveiled a strategy that proposes retooling the military to deter and, if necessary, fight a potential conflict with major powers such as China and Russia.

And it represents a setback for deficit hawks such as Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, who last year pressed for an increase in defense spending that could be offset by cuts to domestic programs.

The $716 billion figure for 2019 would cover the Pentagon’s annual budget as well as spending on ongoing wars and the maintenance of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. It would increase Pentagon spending by more than 7 percent over the 2018 budget, which still has not passed through Congress.

The proposed budget would be a 13 percent increase over 2017 when the United States spent about $634 billion on defense. In the absence of a budget, spending continues at 2017 levels.

What’s behind this massive surge in “defense” spending… Simple…

Here are the highlights from Secretary Mattis’s speech, on January 19th, introducing NDS2018:

This defense strategy was framed … by President Trump’s National Security Strategy. … It is, as was noted by the dean, our nation’s first National Defense Strategy in 10 years. …

We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists that we are engaged in today, but Great Power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of US national security. …

We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia are from each other, nations that do seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models, pursuing veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic and security decisions.

Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran persist in taking outlaw actions that threaten regional and even global stability. Oppressing their own people and shredding their own people’s dignity and human rights, they push their warped views outward. …

We’re going to build a more lethal force. We will strengthen our traditional alliances and building new partnerships with other nations.

The second line of effort I noted was to strengthen alliances as we build new partnerships, as well.

History proves that nations with allies thrive.

“What Mattis is saying is that you can’t have the best military in the world on an Obama budget,” said Mark Cancian, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The proposed increase is “a huge deal.”

“It’s a big jump in defense and means that the Trump administration is putting resources against an extremely aggressive defense strategy.”

Ironic that this comes just hours after the government reported that core durable goods orders tumbled in America but thanks to a 55% surge in Defense Aircraft spending, all is well… we’re gonna need moar war… for sure.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2rKQHLq Tyler Durden

Illinois, Connecticut, Rhode Island Top List of “Worst States To Live In,” But Why?

Gallup recently asked Americans whether they agree that their home state is the “worst possible state to live in.” In Illinois, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, nearly a quarter of respondents said hell yes. Such levels of discontent was nearly matched by folks in Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, and New Jersey. See your state’s result below.

What explains such self-loathing? The worst states include rural places and industrialized (and post-industrial) places; they’re also geographically, meteorologically, and demographically mixed. They’re rich (New Jersey) and poor (Mississippi). None is western, but Nevada and New Mexico are nipping at their heels. When you look at the happiest states (or, more accurately, the states whose residents were least likely to piss on themselves), you find a similarly wide spread. Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Maine register only 1 percent to 2 percent of malcontents. Some of these states (Texas, North Dakota) are going gangbusters in terms of jobs but others (Maine, Wisconsin) are not. Many (Wyoming, Utah, Colorado) are Mountain West, with all that confers, but others are frigid, semi-apocalyptic landscapes (Minnesota, North Dakota).

As The Daily Mail reports, confusion reigns in a list of the country’s 25 happiest metro areas as well (see full list after the jump). California tops the rankings, with eight cities in the list, but otherwise does kind of meh in overall state-level happiness. Texas manages to place only one area (Austin-Round Rock) in the top 25. Colorado is well-represented by three metro areas that almost certainly account for a majority of the state’s population.

Another Gallup poll, one that links “satisfaction with life” and political ideology, might shed some light on the disjunctures. Over the past year, Gallup reports, self-identified Republicans think things are going much better in America than they used to. Fully 90 percent of Republicans are somewhat or very satisfied with “overall quality of life” these days, compared to 76 percent of Democrats. And what a difference a year makes: In 2017, the Republican number was 74 percent while the Democrat number was 85 percent. That kind of maps on to many of these results. Illinois, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and New York are anti-Trump bastions that are also taking the exclusion of state-and-local taxes on the chin. Many of the happier states went red in the last election too.

But there’s certainly no simple, convincing explanation for any of the “worst possible state to live in” results. When it comes to whether it’s morning or mourning in America, partisanship seems the likely culprit. Gallup notes that aggregate opinions about quality of life, the ability to get ahead, the fairness of income distribution, and the moral climate of the country haven’t changed much at all (between just 3 percentage points or less on each topic). But when you look at how Democrats and Republicans view these things, huge swings are evident. For instance, Republicans are nine points more likely to say we are a moral country today than a year ago while Dems are 14 points less likely to do so. Dems are in a funk while conservatives are giddy these days.

And where are libertarians or independents (who make up 40 percent of the electorate) when it comes to all this? Gallup doesn’t bother to ask, so you’ll have to let us know in the comments.

Here is the list of America’s “25 Happiest Cites,” based on “an index to measure a population’s happiness based on 15 metrics including civic engagement, walkability and healthful food options.”

  1. Boulder, CO
  2. Santa Cruz-Watsonville, CA
  3. Charlottesville, VA
  4. Fort Collins, CO
  5. San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles-Arroyo Grande, CA
  6. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA
  7. Provo-Orem, UT
  8. Bridgeport-Stamford, CT
  9. Barnstable Town, MA
  10. Anchorage, AK
  11. Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island, FL
  12. Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA
  13. Salinas, CA
  14. North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL
  15. Urban Honolulu, HI
  16. Ann Arbor, MI
  17. San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
  18. Colorado Springs, CO
  19. Manchester-Nashua, NH
  20. Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA
  21. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV
  22. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI
  23. San Diego-Carlsbad, CA
  24. Portland-South Portland, ME
  25. Austin-Round Rock, TX

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2ne28qk
via IFTTT

If Currency Wars Have Indeed Started, This Is What Comes Next

Even as overall volatility remains tame, things are rapidly changing in the world of currency trading where FX vol has spiked to the highest level since early October after this week’s dramatic FX rollercoaster which saw the US Treasury Secretary get this close to launching currency war, and required the verbal intervention of both (a rather angry) Mario Draghi and Donald Trump himself to normalize things, if only for the time being.

While some were quick to point out that what Mnuchin did with his “weak dollar” commentary was a dramatic reversal of decades of US “strong dollar” policy (which is nothing more than lip service as Hank Paulson showed so very well when he launched QE1 in 2008), others such as FX strategist Alan Ruskin saw a more innocuous explanation: as we noted earlier, he suggested that what you have here “is two officials who like a weak(er) USD in the short-term that will help the US trade accounts and support growth, albeit to the point where strong growth will eventually support a strong USD longer-term.”

In Alan’s view this is a way of saying that in the short-term a weak USD is good for US trade, and in the long-term a strong USD is good because it is indicative of strong growth a healthy economy. Still, Ruskin concedes that that this is clearly a very confusing message to convey and it’s unlikely to either be reported or understood correctly, which doesn’t really help the message.

And then there is the less subtle explanation: that trade wars have indeed broken out. That’s the assumption used by DB’s Masao Muraki, who today writes that it his view that the Trump Administration, having completed the tax reforms, will shift focus to trade policy.

As such it will be “easy for Trump to appeal to his base, ahead of the mid-term elections in November, with trade and dollar depreciation policies.”

And while Trump clarified on January 25 and 26 that US dollar remarks made by Mnuchin were misinterpreted, the Deutsche strategist believes that despite all the rhetoric, “Trump would not want to see the dollar appreciating in the near term, considering his remarks in the past” listed below.

  • 11 January 2017, U.S. Republican, Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, “Hundreds of billions with China on trade and trade imbalance, with Japan, with Mexico, with just about everybody. We don’t make good deals anymore.”, “Russia and other countries and other countries including China, which has taken total advantage of us economically, totally advantage of us in the South China Sea by building their massive fortress, total. Russia, China, Japan, Mexico, all countries will respect us far more, far more than they do under past administrations.”
  • 23 January 2017, U.S. President, Donald Trump, “(Japan does) things to us that make it impossible to sell cars in Japan, and yet, they sell cars into us, and they come in like by the hundreds of thousands on the biggest ships I’ve ever seen.”, “It’s not fair.”, “If, as an example, we sell a car into Japan and they do things to us that make it impossible to sell cars in Japan … we have to all talk about that.”,

Meanwhile, commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appears anxious to implement the pending trade measures.

So if an aggressive currency depreciation is what the Donald ordered, i.e. some version of “trade war”, what happens next?

According to Muraki, it will be all up to the Yen.

As the strategist explains, conventional wisdom speculates that tapering the monetary policy is “premised on the forecast of yen depreciation resulting from the Fed and ECB’s tapering.” However, if the opposite happens as has been the aggressive case recently, and the yen appreciates, “the BoJ would have little room to taper its monetary easing.”

Meanwhile, ECB members have already begun to talk down the euro’s appreciation, and as we pointed out, in a remarkable outburst, on Thursday ECB President Mario Draghi directly criticized Mnuchin’s comments.”

At that point, Japan may start to talk down its own currency if jawboning interventions and retaliations become commonplace again like they were in 2016 through 1H 2017.

BoJ Governor Kuroda said if there were a major change in the “economic activity and prices as well as financial market conditions,” that “main policy tool will be further cuts in the negative short-term policy interest rate and lowering the target level of the long-term interest rate.”

There are several direct consequences, or rather observations, should the BOJ get dragged into a fresh round of currency wars.

In Observation 1, Muraki explains, that any hope the BOJ would have of tapering flies out the window as it would send the Yen spiking higher at a time when the US was actively debasing the dollar. This is a problem as the Japanese central bank is rapidly running out of private bonds it can monetize and it already owns over 75% of Japan’s equity ETFs.

The yen has appreciated and banking stocks have risen since the BoJ lowered the purchasing amount of long-term JGBs on 9 January. It is generally believed that this reflected the speculation of the BoJ tapering its monetary easing. However, while such belief did have some impacts on the market, we do not believe the impacts would be large. First, the reaction is relatively limited in the yen bond market, which is most sensitive to policy changes. Second, the yen is not appreciating as significantly as the dollar is depreciating against most currencies (Figures 1-2). Third, securities and lease stocks, which tend to react negatively to tapering of monetary easing, have significantly outperformed banking stocks that tend to react positively.

We believe a more plausible explanation is some financial sub-sectors have been propped up by circulatory funds flowing into low-P/B sectors that have been lagging.

Observation 2: it would have a direct impact on the BOJ’s three monetary policy scenarios, as follows:

  • (A) DB’s house view expects Haruhiko Kuroda to be reappointed as BoJ Governor, and current monetary policy to be maintained. We expect the BoJ to carry out “stealth tapering”, slowing the net increase in JGB holdings to under ¥40trn/year because the amount of JGB purchases needed for its YCC policy is declining.

     
  • (B) We see the possibility of some leeway for the BoJ to slightly adjust YCC if long- and short-term UST yields rise and the yen weakens.

  • (C) However, the yield curve could face flattening pressure if Etsuro Honda (Japan’s ambassador to Switzerland), who advocates additional easing, joins the BoJ as the successor of Deputy Governor Kikuo Iwata or in other roles. We see lower probability of Scenario B’s tapering of easing when the yen appreciates, because yen appreciation puts downward pressure on Japanese inflation and corporate earnings. We see the possibility that, if the yen appreciates significantly, discussions of additional easing (Scenario C) will likely heat up again. That said, we see a high hurdle for additional easing considering the potential negative side effects.

Which brings us to Observation 3, and the most likely outcome should the US continue to wage covert currency war: a BOJ retaliation in the form of even more QE.

Criticism of BoJ’s monetary policy. There is a possibility of the US Department of Treasury criticizing Japanese and European monetary policies for targeting currency depreciation. However, if this happens, we believe the BoJ can justify its policy because Japan’s inflation rate is much lower than that of the US and Europe.

What are the implications of currency wars for Japanese stocks?  DB calculates that if the yen were to appreciate ¥10 against the dollar, to offset the impact on Japanese stocks, US stocks would have to rise 5%.

As for the implications of currency wars on financial stocks, DB observes that FX sensitivity of banking, securities, and lease stocks is high. If the BoJ were to restrain the yen’s appreciation, the yen would depreciate but  expectations of additional easing should put downward pressure on yen interest rates. Yen interest rate sensitivity of life insurance, securities, and banking stocks is high.

 

In conclusion, Deutsche Bank which dreads another episode of aggressive NIRP, currency devaluation and QE-driven race to the bottom as it would mean another near-death experience for the German bank as happened in September 2016, writes that in the end, currency wars will end with winners and losers, but generally speaking, a weak US dollar with low US interest rates tend to enhance excessive liquidity, exerting a positive effect on risk asset prices.

Which, ironically, explains why in this paradoxical case, it is not an acceleration of dollar weakness that can lead to a violent end to the party, but dollar strength as Bank of America cautioned earlier in the day, when Michael Hartnett said that the US dollar is the key catalyst: “note US-Europe FX spat sparked ’87 crash” and “higher US$ “pain trade” = risk-off coming weeks.

So maybe this time, currency war is just what the Keynesian PhD ordered…

via RSS http://ift.tt/2nds7hI Tyler Durden

Toronto Billionaire Couple Were Murdered In A “Targeted Double Homicide”

Nearly a week after a team of private investigators that included several former Toronto homicide detectives said they found evidence of foul play, the Toronto Police Department said Friday that they will now investigate the deaths of billionaire philanthropists Barry and Honey Sherman as a “targeted” double-homicide, according to CBC. The police made the announcement during a 1 pm ET press conference.

Barry, 75, and Honey, 70, were found dead by a real estate agent in the basement of their Toronto mansion on Dec. 15.  An autopsy revealed the cause of death for both to be “ligature neck compression,” meaning strangulation. Police initially believed it was a “suspicious” murder-suicide. The Shermans are believed to possess a fortune worth nearly $5 billion thanks to Barry Sherman’s Apotex, a Canadian pharmaceutical giant that specializes in producing generic copies of popular drugs. At the time of his death, Sherman and his company were embroiled in multiple lawsuits.

A source with direct knowledge of the parallel probe told CBC Toronto that private investigators believe that the billionaire Toronto couple was murdered by multiple killers.

Sherman

The couple’s children expressed outrage at the media’s willingness to jump to conclusions in the murder case after the deaths were reported as a “murder-suicide” before the official police announcement.

As we reported previously, the Sherman’s were popular on Toronto’s gala circuit and were said to be excited about their newest grandchild at the time of their deaths.

Indeed, the Sherman’s gifts included multimillion-dollar donations to hospitals, schools and charities and had buildings named in their honor. They also gave generously to Jewish organizations.

They even hosted Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for a Liberal party fundraiser in 2015. In a statement released following the initial reports of their deaths, Trudeau said he and his wife were “saddened” and offered “our condolences” to their friends and family.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2GlUXEw Tyler Durden

Immigration Is the Only Thing Saving Connecticut From an Even Worse Budget Crisis

Connecticut’s state motto—”Qui Transtulit Sustinet”—translates to “he who transplanted, sustains.” It’s a nod to the people who founded the Connecticut colony: immigrants who first fled religious persecution in England, then moved again out of disagreements with the ways their fellow colonists were running Massachusetts.

In the past few years, thousands of residents have transplanted themselves out of Connecticut. The state government has imposed two massive tax increases in the span of less than a decade. Those increases have not solved Connecticut’s fiscal problems—the place finished the most recent fiscal year with a $3.5 billion deficit, and it’s running in the red again this year—but they have certainly exacerbated the migration crisis.

The full fiscal crisis runs far deeper than the budget. Connecticut’s debt has climbed from 12 percent in 1997 to 31 percent this year, according to the state Office of Fiscal Analysis. An analysis by The Connecticut Mirror found that annual debt service costs climbed by about 10 percent every year from 2011 to 2017. Equally unsustainable is the state’s public pension system, which has a deficit of about $74 billion and only enough assets to meet 50 percent of its long-term obligations.

The biggest factor behind Connecticut’s shrinking population, the state’s Office of Policy Management noted in a report last year, is the sharp increase in the number of people leaving the state. Net out-migration was up 55 percent in the years 2014–16 when compared to the previous decade’s averages. And it’s not just individuals who are leaving: Companies—General Electric, Aetna, Alexion—have fled the state in search of a lower tax burden.

About the only thing that’s working in Connecticut’s favor right now is that it remains an attractive destination for international immigrants. While the state has been a net loser in domestic migration every year since 2003—with the biggest losses coming in 2014–2016—Connecticut has gained more than 10,000 residents from abroad every year this century. That won’t solve the state’s long-term financial problems, but it certainly could soften the blow.

Here’s how that looks:

Connecticut is looking like the Illinois of New England: a place where tax increases are no longer fiscally or politically realistic, even though budgetary obligations continue to grow and spending is completely out of control. In fact, on a per capita level, Connecticut extracts more—about a thousand dollars more—from its residents than Illinois does, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

While there are many reasons to leave Connecticut that have nothing to do with taxes—job opportunities, a better climate, getting away from New England Patriots fans—it’s notable that the state’s population decline sets it apart from its neighbors. Whether you compare it to the rest of New England or the rest of the states in the greater New York City region, Connecticut is an outlier:

Connecticut isn’t just it’s losing population. It’s losing the high-earning (and therefore high-taxpaying) portion of its population. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the estimated 20,000 residents who left the state last year earned an estimated $2.6 billion in adjusted gross income. That about $130,000 per resident.

The decline started, as the chart above shows, after a $1.5 billion tax increase in 2011. Lawmakers followed that with a $1.2 billion tax increase in 2015, after which the exodus picked up steam. According to the Yankee Institute, a Hartford-based think tank, Connecticut has lost more than 77,000 people with a combined adjusted gross income of $8.8 billion since 2011.

“Connecticut has had a steady flow of people leaving the state for decades,” says Suzanne Bates, director of public policy at the Yankee Institute. “But the pace has increased in recent years—and those years when the increase has been the greatest have been the years directly following large tax increases.”

While immigration is helping to staunch the flow of people out of the state, Connecticut’s loss of high-income residents is a serious problem because the state’s tax code is so dependent on them. A recent study by the state Department of Revenue Services found that in 2014 just 357 families paid $682.5 million in state taxes—11.7 percent of the total haul.

Since the state government’s strategy for dealing with ongoing fiscal shortages seems focused almost exclusively on raising taxes, it’s probably just a matter of time before even more of those high earners look for refuge somewhere else.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2BuYBIA
via IFTTT

Death Panels Next? FDA Approves A.I. Model That Predicts Your Chance Of ‘Sudden Expiration’

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the very first artificial intelligence (AI) computer that monitors a patient’s vitals to help forecast sudden death up to six hours before the grim reaper shows up.

Excel Medical, a medical device data company in Florida, developed the deep learning algorithm called WAVE Clinical Platform for the eradication of unexpected hospital deaths.

 

WAVE automatically calculates the risk of the patient through subtle changes in vitals, which provides hospital staff with critical information of when the patient is expected to kick the bucket. The algorithm monitors the patient on a continuous basis, a task that is very challenging for hospitals, as the demographic crisis strains the U.S. healthcare system.

Stephen McBride of Mauldin Economics describes the situation:

Few investors understand the magnitude of the looming demographic crisis and its ramifications. The first Baby Boomers turned 70 last year. At the same time, the US fertility rate is at its lowest point since records began in 1909. This disastrous combination means by 2030, those aged 65 and older will make up over 20% of the population.

 

In realtime, on top of the patient’s vitals, the algorithm also factors in digital medical records, past medical history, family history, medications, age, and vital signs. Below is an example of the alert system interface.

 

Speaking to Digital Trends, ExcelMedical’s Chief Strategy Officer Mary Baum said, “We do not have enough physicians or nurses, and we have an aging population who are sicker and who need more resources and services.”

According to IFL Science,

It has also just become the first AI platform of its kind to be cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This decision was based on a series of studies at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center that showed the AI platform could prevent unexpected deaths in hospitals. Another more recent study, using similar technology by Stanford University, outlined on the preprint server arXiv, explains how a deep-learning algorithm can correctly predict an otherwise-unexpected death in 90 percent of cases.

The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) administered phase 1, 2, and three of the clinical trials for the AI computer. According to the clinical, UPMC’s control cohort had six unexpected deaths, while the AI trail cohort had zero.

The WAVE platform incorporates an algorithm called the Visensia Safety Index (VSI), developed by Oxford University. Excel licenses the algorithm, which was approved for use in 2011. The new clearance from the FDA, granted earlier this month, is for the algorithm’s use in tandem with Excel Medical’s platform.

Here is the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) decision tree for hospital staff members when an AI alert of a patient is triggered.

 

“Everything we do as an organization aligns toward and supports the goal of eradicating unexpected deaths in hospitals,” says Lance Burton, General Manager of Excel Medical. “People may say zero unexpected deaths is unattainable. We say anything other than zero is unconscionable.”

To sum up, AI’s gift to humanity is the knowledge of when you supposed to die six hours before. As for the baby boomer generation, what would you do in your last six hours? Further, what happens when the technology progresses to 12-hours, and or even days in advance of your death. How will the human psyche process such knowledge?

How long before the same A.I. can predict your sudden death a few years out? …and decide whether you’re worth keeping around?

via RSS http://ift.tt/2ncnrsm Tyler Durden

US Rig Count Soars Most In 10 Months As Production Hits Record High

US rig counts rose by 12 in the last week – the biggest rise since March 2017 – as the lagged crude price is sparking more drilling and in turn sending production surging to a new record high… just shy of Saudi Arabia!

 

 

 

US crude production surged back from its weather-impacted plunge to a new record high last week…

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/20180124_DOE3.jpg

 

And is set to overtake Saudi Arabia very soon…

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/20180126_shale1_0.jpg

via RSS http://ift.tt/2DBd4o7 Tyler Durden