Tag: news

French Stocks Surge Off Technical Support After Overnight Poll

Nothing says existential fear for the EU like buying the f**king French dip on the heels of an overnight poll that simply confirmed expectations that the worst case scenario 'Le Pen – Melenchon' second round was still a significant outlier. French stocks soared 1.7% – the most in 6 weeks – bouncing off the 50-day moving average.

We suspect given the massive hedge positions being laid out that this kind of volatility will be the new normal for the next week or so… 

Notice CAC bounced perfectly off the 50DMA

It was a broad-based rally, with banking stocks among top gainers: BNP Paribas +4.2%, Societe Generale +3.8%, Credit Agricole +3%.

CAC 40 is “taking centre stage and moving higher on the belief that Emmanuel Macron will make it to the final vote this weekend,” Michael Hewson, a market analyst at CMC Markets, wrote in a note.

Following are first-round voting intention estimates in Harris Interactive-France Televisions poll for the French presidential election. Changes from Apr. 13 are in brackets.

  • Emmanuel Macron 25% (+1 point)
  • Marine Le Pen 22% (unchanged)
  • Francois Fillon 19% (-1 point)

And overall, Le Pen's odds of final victory have fallen notably (below Fillon) according to Oddschecker.

 

Still, we all know what polls are worth.

Meanwhile, Europeans really don't care…  

The European Commission’s consumer-confidence index for the euro area jumped the most in five months in April. The advance put the index at its highest since March 2015, matching the strongest reading since before the financial crisis. The latest figures were far better than economists had anticipated and mark another step in the region’s economic recovery for European Central Bank policy makers to consider at their meeting next week.

via http://ift.tt/2oOzKMx Tyler Durden

Ed Krayewski Talking Iran Nuclear Deal on the Tom Brown Show

I’ll be on the Tom Brown Show today, broadcast on AM 1350 WEZS in Laconia, N.H., and over the internet, to talk about the latest developments on the Iran nuclear deal, which I wrote about yesterday.

A number of Republican presidential candidates promised to rip up the nuclear deal on day 1, but despite criticizing it on the campaign trail, Donald Trump was not one of them. Ninety days into his term, his administration, and specifically Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was required by the legislation that enforces the nuclear deal to certify to Congress whether Iran was in compliance with the deal.

Tillerson was free to inform Congress that he could not certify that Iran was in compliance, or to even ignore the deadline all together and kick off the process of withdrawing from the multilateral executive agreement. Instead, he certified Iran was in compliance while ordering a “comprehensive review” of whether the deal-related suspension of sanctions was in America’s national interests.

Tillerson called the nuclear deal a “failed approach,” but the Trump administration’s confrontational rhetoric on Iran has not yet translated into policy. So far, the rhetoric is a kind of “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” exercise—meant for public consumption, not policymaking. Nevertheless, such rhetoric could still empower hardliners in Iran, who are looking to take the presidency in next month’s election in the Islamic Republic. and given the unpredictable nature of Trump’s foreign policy so far, the disconnect between rhetoric and policy could change any time.

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

Finally. The Breakthrough.

Finally, the breakthrough.

After months of experimentation and failure, I finally managed to crack the code and successfully distill my first batch of homemade ethanol.

I botched the job the first seven times and ended up with useless buckets of goo, so I’m pretty excited right now.

It turns out that it’s not even that hard.

I started with unused fruit that literally falls off the trees in my organic orchard.

Nature does most of the work; the fruit eventually decomposes down to its basic sugars, at which point the addition of yeast turns the sugar into alcohol.

The last step is the distillation process which separates the alcohol from the rest of the mix. (A basic distillation kit costs less than $30.)

And voila, the end result is pure ethanol. OK maybe not 100% pure, I’m still not Walter White. But it does the job.

The uses for ethanol are endless.

It’s a great antiseptic for medical purposes. Ethanol can be further turned into white vinegar, or mixed with our homemade lavender oil and diluted into a household cleanser.

It can be consumed to kill brain cells. It can be burned for heat. It can be even used as a gasoline substitute to power a flex-fuel motor vehicle.

That’s probably the most exciting part– not having to depend on the outside world for the fuel that I put in my car.

Talking about this stuff makes me seem like I’m some rabid survivalist hiding out in a bunker waiting for the end of the world.

I’m not. I think the world is awesome and full of incredible opportunities.

I’ve seen it with my own eyes after traveling to 120+ countries and having started or acquired so many great businesses.

Clearly there are obvious consequences of a fatally flawed financial system and far too much government debt.

But that doesn’t mean the world is coming to an end. It’s changing.

And I’m quite optimistic about the future, especially for people who take control of the outcome by protecting their downside risk and going after the abundance of opportunity that comes from dramatic change.

That’s what the idea of personal sovereignty is all about: taking control.

That means reducing our dependence on what we cannot control and taking charge of what we can.

Being able to grow my own fuel is a small example.

I’m not recommending that you produce ethanol (though you probably already have enough starter material in your garbage bin.)

But each of us has aspects of our own lives over which we can easily take greater control.

It could be health, for example, which would mean making better decisions about what we eat and exercising more.

Doing this will have a far greater impact on our health than any government health plan could ever achieve.

Many of us could probably also take greater charge of our finances.

Again, rather than waiting for some politician or central bank to engineer prosperity and economic growth, learning more about investing and business will have a far greater impact.

With a small investment of time and money in your education, you could easily learn the skills that are necessary to become, say, a successful real estate investor, or to start your own e-commerce business.

I’m not talking about becoming a multi-billionaire. This is about generating additional cashflow, $500 to $5,000 per month.

It’s not rocket science, and this outcome is completely achievable for ANYONE.

In other words, no one has to wait for an act of Congress or new central bank policy to make more money. We have the power to control our own economic prosperity.

Taking charge of retirement is another obvious example.

We routinely discuss how pension funds across nearly all western governments are completely underfunded.

According to an analysis from Citibank, the largest western economies including Germany, France, Italy, Japan, etc. have pension gaps totaling roughly $80 trillion.

The US Social Security system makes up nearly half of that amount, and even the government itself tells us that Social Security’s trust funds will run out of money in about 17 years.

So if you plan on being retired at some point beyond 2034, you absolutely have to reduce your dependence on Social Security and take control of your retirement.

Again, there are countless ways to do so.

You could set up a self-directed SEP IRA, for example, and contribute up to $54,000 to your retirement each year from that new business we talked about earlier.

Plus you’ll derive fantastic tax benefits from doing so.

Banking is another obvious area over which we can take back control.

As I often write, depositors are nothing more than unsecured creditors of their banks.

We have zero control, oversight, or knowledge over how our banks gamble away our savings on the latest risky investment fad.

But taking back control is easy; there are plenty of options. You could simply withdraw a little bit of physical cash and hold a few thousand dollars in a safe.

Or you could buy gold. Or even cryptocurrencies like bitcoin or etherium.

All of this means that, no matter what happens or doesn’t happen next, you’ll thrive.

If Social Security goes bust, your retirement will still be great.

If your bank turns out to be another Lehman Brothers, you’ll still have independent funds.

In my case, I’ll always have a steady supply of energy, organic food, and now, fuel for my vehicle.

I cannot overstate the power and confidence that you’ll feel once you’re in control.

It’s an incredible feeling. And it’s totally achievable.

All it takes is a little bit of education… and the will to act.

Source

from Sovereign Man http://ift.tt/2oqCL3h
via IFTTT

Are Bonds Headed Back To Extraordinarily Low Rate Regime?

Via Dana Lyons' Tumblr,

The U.S. 10-Year Treasury Yield has dropped back below the line containing the past decade’s “extraordinarily low-rate” regime.

Among the many significant moves in financial markets last fall in the aftermath of the U.S. presidential election was a spike higher in U.S. bond yields. This spike included a jump in the 10-Year Treasury Yield (TNX) above its post-2007 Down trendline. Now, this was not your ordinary trendline break. Here is the background, as we noted in a post in January when the TNX subsequently tested the breakout point:

“As many observers may know, bond yields topped in 1981 and have been in a secular decline since. And, in fact, they had been in a very well-defined falling channel for 26 years (in blue on the chart below). In 2007, at the onset of the financial crisis, yields entered a new regime.

 

Spawned by the Fed’s “extraordinarily low-rate” campaign, the secular decline in yields began a steeper descent.  This new channel (shown in red) would lead the TNX to its all-time lows in the 1.30%’s in 2012 and 2016.

 

The top of this new channel is that post-2007 Down trendline. Thus, recent price action has 10-Year Yields threatening to break out of this post-2007 technical regime. That’s why we consider the level to be so important.”

We bring up this topic again today because, unlike January’s successful hold of the post-2007 “low-rate regime” line, the TNX has dropped back below it in recent days. Here is the long-term chart alluded to above.

And here is a close-up version.

As can be seen on the 2nd chart, the TNX has just broken below several key Fibonacci Retracement levels near the 2.30% level – not to mention the post-2007 Down trendline which currently lies in the same vicinity. Does this meant the extraordinarily low-rate environment is back?

Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve only sets the overnight “Fed Funds” rate – not longer-term bond yields (at least not directly). So this is not the Fed’s direct doing (and besides, they’re in the middle of a rate hiking cycle). Therefore, the official “extraordinarily low-rate” environment that the Fed maintained for the better part of a decade is not coming back – at least not imminently. But how about these longer rates?

Outside of some unmistakable influence resulting from Fed policy, longer-term Treasury Yields are decided by free market forces. Thus, this return to the realm of the TNX’s ultra low-rate regime is market-driven, whatever the reason. Is there a softer underlying economic current than what is generally accepted at the present time? Is the Trump administration pivoting to a more dovish posture than seen in campaign rhetoric? Are the geopolitical risks playing a part in suppressing yields back below the ultra low-rate “line of demarcation”?

Some or all of those explanations may be contributing to the return of the TNX to its ultra low-rate regime. We don’t know and, frankly, we don’t really care. All we care about, as it pertains to bond yields, is being on the right side of their path. And currently, the easier path for yields is to the downside as a result of the break of major support near 2.30%.

*  *  *

Check out the Premium post at our new “all-access” site, The Lyons Share, for the specific important levels of potential support and resistance on the 10-Year Yield. If you find our charts and research that we share here helpful and enjoyable, check out The Lyons Share – we are confident that you’ll find a lot of value in the service.

via http://ift.tt/2oZdPCS Tyler Durden

The GOP’s New Obamacare Repeal Deal Would Give States More Choice—But Only With Federal Permission

After a months-long standoff, conservative and moderate GOP factions may be nearing an agreement on measure to partially repeal and replace Obamacare.

The apparent deal, which still may not have enough support to push through the House, is likely to be portrayed by supporters as a compromise that allows states to decide on their own approach to health policy. But the terms make it look less a negotiated compromise than an agreement to let individual states work out the differences between the two groups via a waiver process that is managed by the federal government.

The core idea of the agreement, as reported by The Huffington Post, is to allow states to opt out of two key provisions in Obamacare: the Essential Health Benefits (EHB) rules, which require insurers to offer certain categories of coverage with all plans, and some of the community rating rules, which restrict how insurers can charge based on individual health history. Insurers would still be prohibited from pricing based on gender, and would only be allowed to charge based on health history in states that established high-risk pools.

But states would not be simply allowed to choose for themselves whether or not to opt out. Instead, they would have to apply for approval from the government, which would have to grant a “Limited Waiver.” States would be required to show, or at least claim, that their waivers would allow them to reduce insurance premiums, increase coverage, or “advance another benefit to the public interest in the state,” according to a summary of the agreement posted by Politico.

States, in other words, would have to rely on the waiver process set up by federal government in order to opt-out. Which means that the permissiveness and flexibility of that process is an important factor.

State waivers for health care policy are not a new idea—and in many cases, the process has been rather onerous for states. Obamacare, for example, included a provision allowing states to apply to opt out of certain requirements through Section 1332 of the law. But 1332 waivers are a heavy lift for states, requiring lengthy public comment periods and review by federal health officials, as well as certification that coverage will remain both as widespread and as generous as under Obamacare. It also limits which provisions the federal government can waive. It sets a regulatory floor that basically leaves states with the option to pursue something like a single-payer system, as in Vermont.

The federal government also grants waivers to states seeking to alter their Medicaid programs. But as Jonathan Ingram, Nic Horton, and Josh Archambault wrote last year in Health Affairs, “States frequently comment on the frustrating, time consuming, and seemingly ‘corrupt and opaque‘ process of the Medicaid Section 1115 waiver route.” Those waivers take nearly a year on average to process. The authors also suggested that Obamacare’s 1332 waiver process, which the law timed to start in 2017, could be even more onerous.

So while waivers have traditionally offered states more flexibility than they would have had if no process existed at all, they have tended to rely heavily on negotiation with the federal government. State choice is dependent on the whims of the administration.

The Trump administration has signalled that it is open to state waiver requests. Seema Verma, who was recently selected to head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which approves the waivers, negotiated a waiver to expanded Medicaid through Obamacare in Indiana, under then-governor Mike Pence. Last month, Verma sent a letter to states asking them to put in waiver requests. The House GOP agreement would probably make the waiver process easier for states—in particular by allowing the administration to waive Obamacare’s essential health benefits and community rating rules.

But the administration would still be charged with granting or denying waivers. And a future administration that is less open to state flexibility might not be so inclined to say yes. And it would do so in a bill that still awkwardly preserves many of the essential features of Obamacare at the federal level, from key insurance regulations to a more limited form of tax subsidy. At best, this would merely tweak the House GOP’s original bill, with all its previous problems, to offer a bit of wiggle room to states that managed to obtain permission from the federal government.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2oU4dXW
via IFTTT

Trump Demands For Border Wall Funding May Force Government Shutdown Next Week

After a week of flip-flops on everything from the value of NATO to labeling China a currency manipulator, moves which quickly earned him the moniker of ‘flipper-in-chief’ from a disgruntled base, Trump, under internal pressure to show legislative achievements ahead of the 100-day mark, is gearing up for a government shutdown fight to secure money for a border wall, more immigration enforcement officers and a bigger military.

Once Congress returns to work from their Easter break they’ll have just 5 days to unveil, debate and pass a spending bill, or trigger a government shutdown on April 28 which would come right before the 100th day of Donald Trump’s presidency.  That said, officials could also strike a one-week compromise, giving them more time for a broader agreement.

People familiar with the negotiations say Mick Mulvaney, the budget
director, and Marc Short, the White House legislative affairs director, are pushing congressional appropriators to include “billions” for their agenda in private conversations. The White House, one person familiar with the conversations said, has pushed for $3 billion for the border wall, and discussions have been ongoing.

“The CR is our biggest focus right now,” one senior administration official said, referring to the continuing resolution on spending.

Of course, in order to get a budget passed, the Trump administration will likely require some Democratic support in the House and certainly in the Senate.  That said, Democratic leaders Schumer and Pelosi insist that any budgets that include funding for Trump’s ‘beautiful’ border wall is a non-starter.  Per Politico:

Securing the $1.4 billion down payment would help Trump fulfill a top campaign promise but it’s facing stiff Democratic resistance. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said adding wall funding would be “a loser” — finding few Democratic votes while even losing some Republicans.

 

“The only thing that could derail that progress is the White House insisting on their extraneous demands, which would meet bipartisan opposition,” said Matt House, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi warned Thursday that including funding for the border wall will almost certainly cause a loss of Democratic support. “I would hope that they wouldn’t try that,” she said, adding, “the American people don’t even support it.”

Shutdown

 

But, the border wall and additional funding for immigration enforcement aren’t the only issues that could force a government shutdown.  As Politico notes, disputes over withholding funding to so-called ‘Sanctuary Cities’, and/or the defunding of Obamacare subsidies or Coal miners’ health benefits could also end in a stalemate.

“Sanctuary cities”

One of the latest threats to a bipartisan accord comes directly from White House budget director Mick Mulvaney.

 

The former conservative GOP lawmaker has been privately urging Republicans to include a provision blocking federal grants for any city that doesn’t enforce federal immigration law. To Democrats, the idea is a nonstarter. But Mulvaney sees it as a chance to get his former House Freedom Caucus colleagues to back the bill, so GOP leaders wouldn’t have to rely on Democratic votes.

 

Obamacare subsidies

The 2010 health care law is again in the middle of a funding fight, but this time, it’s Democrats who are making an issue of it.

 

Democratic leaders declared that any spending bill must provide money for a key Obamacare subsidy program after Trump threatened to defund the cost-sharing subsidies; the president sees the program as a way to force Democrats to the negotiating table.

 

Schumer told reporters this week that Democrats are “very hopeful” the payments would be included, but Republicans aren’t exactly eager to pay for the health subsidies, which they have sued to block.

 

In the wake of last month’s Obamacare repeal meltdown by the House GOP, Republicans are in no mood to further prop up the law. But key health and business lobbies, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say GOP leaders may have no choice if they want to prevent an imminent collapse of the individual insurance marketplace. Another option is simply for the Trump administration to continue making the payments and avoid any final decision in the spending bill.

 

Coal miners’ benefits

Congress was hours away from a government shutdown last fall over a disputed miners’ health care program. Now, the benefits of 16,000 retired workers and federal funding are again on the line.

 

Democrats and some coal country Republicans have insisted on a long-term solution for the workers’ health care as well as a separate pension fund, but a 10-year fix could cost about $3 billion and is running into opposition among conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation along with House GOP budget hawks.

So what say you?  Are we headed for another government shutdown or will the flipper-in-chief cave again?

via http://ift.tt/2oU4dYl Tyler Durden

Crispin Odey: “It Feels Lonely Being Bearish”

In Crispin Odey’s latest letter to investors, the billionaire hedge fund manager laments “how quickly everything has changed”, notes that “without the reflation fireworks, equity markets feel vulnerable”, and concludes that while a year ago it was easy to be bearish – China was slowing, world trade was creaking, Europe was not recovering and the oil price was hitting new lows – “a year later to be bearish feels lonely, despite the fact that the reflationary story of the past year looks difficult to sustain and auto loan lending has joined a long list of risks along with Trump and Brexit.”

 And yet, unlike Horseman, he is not throwing in the towel just yet: “Money creation alone has taken markets to all-time highs but what strong arms take, strong arms must defend. Valuations demand that they do.”

And while Odey’s trenchant appeal that “when we look back at this madness, some people will feel ashamed” is accurate however, considering his YTD P&L of -4.9%, following a 1 year drop of 33.7% (and more than half over the past 3 years), Odey may not be among those looking back.

Full letter below:

Look how quickly everything has changed. Trump, defeated over the Obama Healthcare reform has, as it were, retreated into an aggressive foreign policy which is almost the opposite to the Monroe doctrine which he was adopting earlier. Bannon is on the back foot. In the absence of a corporate tax cut or any kind of VAT tax reform, the US economy is succumbing to an overvalued dollar and a growing crisis in subprime lending, centred on the second hand car market. The government bonds have already guessed Yellen’s mind. No more rate rises. We are now just waiting for the Fed to set up a lending business, loaning 5 year old cars to people who can neither drive nor borrow. That is what they need to do to stop the subprime losses ballooning.

 

Last year what bailed everyone out after the bad first quarter was China and the oil price. Despite China pumping in 40% of GNP in new lending, the statistics are revealing. The economy grew nominally 7½%. Consumption of steel grew by 2%, despite steel prices rising 60%, and the auto market started to weaken (by 2.5%) in the new year after being driven up by the size of the support exercise. For this year, it is going to be difficult for China to even continue its recovery. The chances have to be high that we have just witnessed a giant rally in a bear market for commodities. Where is Trump’s massive infrastructure boom?

Without the fireworks, equity markets feel vulnerable. The Great Reflation was responsible for a re-rating of stock markets. If all we have left is the Central Bank’s bond bubbles, that may not generate enough growth to support prices.

 

Whilst undoubtedly bonds were in bubble territory last year as evidenced by the fact that the only way a buyer could possibly make money was by selling the loss making asset to a bigger fool, the equity market did become compliant in the game. Companies learnt to pay out dividends with borrowed money and became very adept at using shares as dividends – so called scrip. Very popular with corporates.

 

Several of our favourite shorts have shown a tremendous appetite for scrip. Intu Properties, the largest shopping mall owners in the UK are valued at £8bn EV, not surprisingly when they received £447m in net rent and £408m in EBITDA in 2016. They paid out £240m on interest and hedging costs (year end LTV of 44%), needed to spend £121m in capex to keep the tenants happy and so shareholders got £183 million in dividend of which £29m was in scrip (£73m in scrip the year before). The problem with scrip is people are starting to find that it is not worth the paper it is written on. Intu this year say they will  spend not £121m but £297m to keep tenants happy. In a world where scrip is no longer being appreciated that leaves a £300m shortfall after £230m interest payable, capex and dividend. Whoops!

 

With the subprime problem emerging in the used car market, remember that this is nothing but a can (car) kicked down the track some years ago. In 2012, with the compliance of the Fed, leases on cars were extended from 3 years to 5 years with a residual value of 20% of the new at the end of the 5 years seeming reasonable given that cars last 10 years. The result was a 30% increase in demand for new cars on the back of a 30% decline in cash costs. Five years later, with subprime in the USA some 2.3x larger than it was in 2008/9, these second hand cars are not attracting bids at or above the residual prices built into the leases. At present, prices are just 7½% below the expected price. Dangerous but not critical. What frightens everyone is who is going to buy so many second hand cars for cash over the next few years? A change to the new leasing price now needs to be made. Just when sales have already been weakening.

 

Another inadvertent child of QE has been the rise of disruptive technologies – Amazon, Uber, Tesla, Artificial Intelligence, ViaSat. All promise to undermine incumbents and most importantly the current assets employed by the incumbents, lent against by the banks and the corporate bond market. Paradoxically it is also the reason that productivity is falling – losing income earners are not easily found, equally well paid jobs. It is putting pressure on property prices in much the same way as it is hitting second hand car prices.

 

Unless we are happy to see the Fed and other central banks extend their remits drastically these new developments must have repercussions in the capital markets. The unwillingness of investors to discount this, has made stock markets both so resilient and so difficult to read.

 

The Bank of England, under Carney, have taken this further than most, presiding over personal savings rates falling from 12% in 2008 to 3.5%. At a time of uncertainty of trade terms, the UK is reliant on credit equal to 5% of GNP. With inflation rising thanks to the fall in ster-ling towards 4% and short rates at 0.25% and 10 year bonds yielding 1%, prices are not that tempting. No wonder that foreign investors have been selling down their gilts. The optimist will tell you that sterling is 25% too cheap ‘on the Big Mac Index’ and is due a bounce. But a bounce presupposes that individuals will start to save again. With all interest rates negative they seem intent on borrowing and spending. When we look back at this madness, some people will feel ashamed. Twisted facts and twisted logic may be met in the quiet of the night by reality.

 

A year ago it was easy to be bearish. China was slowing, world trade was creaking, Europe was not recovering and the oil price was hitting new lows. A year later to be bearish feels lonely, despite the fact that the reflationary story of the past year looks difficult to sustain and auto loan lending has joined a long list of risks along with Trump and Brexit. Money creation alone has taken markets to all-time highs but what strong arms take, strong arms must defend. Valuations demand that they do.

* * *

Finally, as per his position breakdown, we may have identified one of the biggest cable shorts. In light of recent events, it appears that Odey’s losses are set to continue.

Finally, here are his top 10 holdings:

via http://ift.tt/2o7MwY6 Tyler Durden

Federal Judge Says Judicial Deference to Executive Branch Agencies Is ‘Judicial Abdication’

Newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is an outspoken foe of Chevron deference, the legal doctrine that tells federal judges to tip the scales in favor of executive branch agencies when those agencies have offered a “reasonable” interpretation of an “ambiguous” federal statute. “Under any conception of our separation of powers,” Gorsuch has written, “I would have thought powerful and centralized authorities like today’s administrative agencies would have warranted less deference from other branches, not more.”

An important case decided last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reveals that Gorsuch has a key anti-Chevron ally on that court. At issue in Waterkeeper Alliance v. Environmental Protection Agency was whether the EPA exceeded its authority under federal law while attempting to regulate animal waste produced by farms. According to the unanimous D.C. Circuit opinion written by Senior Judge Stephen Williams, “the EPA’s action here can’t be justified.”

Among the judges who joined that unanimous opinion was Janice Rogers Brown, a Republican-appointee who has previously exhibited certain libertarian tendencies in cases dealing with such issues as economic liberty, police misconduct, and Amtrak. Those tendencies were on display once again last week.

“I join in the Panel Opinion because ‘[the EPA’s approach] ran afoul of the underlying statutes (and was therefore outside the EPA’s delegated authority),'” Judge Brown declared. But she also wrote a separate concurrence, in which she went further, rejecting efforts by the EPA and others to shoehorn lawless executive branch behavior in via the already too lenient standard set forth by the Chevron doctrine. “If a court could purport fealty to Chevron while subjugating statutory clarity to agency ‘reasonableness,'” she wrote, “textualism will be trivialized.”

Brown concluded her concurrence by observing that “an Article III renaissance is emerging against the judicial abdication performed in Chevron‘s name.” Article III is that part of the U.S. Constitution that grants “the judicial power” to the courts. In other words, what Brown is saying is that certain federal judges are starting to get fed up with judicial deference to the executive branch and starting to wonder whether the time has come to perform their judicial duty to “say what the law is,” as Chief Justice John Marshall once put it.

As evidence of this Article III renaissance, Brown pointed to none other than Neil Gorsuch, quoting from then-Judge Gorsuch’s 10th Circuit opinion in Guiterrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, in which Gorsuch wrote, “whatever the agency may be doing under Chevron, the problem remains that courts are not fulfilling their duty to interpret the law.”

To be sure, Chevron is at no immediate risk of being overturned. But if Judge Brown and Justice Gorsuch ultimately have their way, the doctrine’s days will be numbered.

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

If Even One Berkeley Student Wants to Hear Ann Coulter, She Should Speak There

CoulterThe University of California-Berkeley cancelled conservative author Ann Coulter’s upcoming speech on grounds that the police could not guarantee her safety—a damaging blow to free speech on campus.

Administrators want to reschedule the event; the Young Americans for Freedom, who invited Coulter in the first place, have vowed to proceed as planned.

Conservative students have good reason to continue with the event anyway, although one can hardly blame administrators, at this point, for being concerned. Berkeley has played host to increasing levels of mob violence as a result of invitations to controversial speakers like Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos. Blame here rests solely on the shoulders of the people promising violence in response to speech they oppose.

Student activists and local Berkeley leftists don’t want Coulter, who has a history of making vile statements, to bring her right-wing shtick to campus. And of course, they have the right to object to her presence, to protest her, and to criticize those who invited her. That’s free speech. But free speech does not include the right to engage in censorship, or to engage in violence, or to threaten violence in order to prevent the university from playing host to a controversial speaker.

Is Coulter’s perspective worth hearing? While she believes a great many things that I find reprehensible, note that she is one of a handful of high-profile figures on the right who opposes increased military intervention in Syria. (Yes, this is a departure from her full-throated Iraq War cheerleading, though at least she’s flip-flopping in the correct direction.) And despite her quasi-religious devotion to President Trump during the campaign, recently she has shown a willingness to criticize him for catering to the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party.

But the case for giving Coulter a platform is actually much simpler, and does not require any defense whatsoever of her views. The case is this: the students who invited her would like to meet her and hear her speak. Presumably, a number of less politically active students—who probably dislike Coulter, but would appreciate the opportunity to hear from her anyway—do as well. Students are paying thousands of dollars to attend Berkeley—a public university—for precisely this opportunity: the opportunity to enjoy thought-provoking learning experiences. Groups whose violent tactics force administrators to rescind speaking invitations are essentially forcing student to waste their investment.

Those who say that students and local activists have a right to shut down the Coulter event are prioritizing one group’s wishes over another’s. They are trampling some students’ rights in order to please others. They are saying the rights of the offended matter more than the rights of the open-minded.

Some have criticized Coulter’s own approach to the issue: she demanded that the university expel any student who engages “in violence, mayhem or heckling to prevent an invited speaker from speaking.” It’s harsh, but I don’t fully understand why it’s particularly controversial. Yes, people who engage in violence should be arrested, and yes, students who prevents an invited speaker from speaking should be subjected to some kind of disciplinary action, because they are violating the rights of members of campus who are interested hearing a contrary perspective.

Students pay good money for such an opportunity. The people taking it away from them are not the good guys.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2oZm8yK
via IFTTT

Republicans Said To Near New Healthcare Deal

After weeks of fits and starts, Obamacare repeal may be back on the table. According to the Huffington Post, the chair fo the House Freedom Caucus, Mark Meadows and Tuesday Group co-chairman Tom MacArthur have reached a tentative Trumpcare deal. But while the two Republican lawmakers say they are nearing a deal on changes to the ObamaCare replacement bill that could move the measure closer to passage, doubts remain.

According to a summary of the amendment posted by Politico,  states would have the option to apply for waivers to allow them to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions,. That means insurers would no longer be prevented from charging people with pre-existing conditions higher premiums because of their illness. The measure would also allow states to repeal ObamaCare’s essential health benefits, which mandate that insurers cover a range of health services, including mental health and prescription drugs.

Additionally, benefits like prescription drug coverage, pregnancy and mental health services would be included again in the bill, but states could get a waiver for that too if they prove it would lower premiums, or provide some other benefit to people.

Yet while the new agreement could find support among more conservatives, moderates are likely to remain an obstacle according to the Hill.

“There’s no deal,” said an aide to a moderate House GOP lawmaker. “I wouldn’t be surprised if they started to lose more moderates” because of the new changes, he added.

Many Republicans objected to similar changes that were discussed before the recess earlier this month. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the chief deputy GOP whip, called similar changes earlier this month a “bridge too far for our members.”

He said that he and much of the Republican conference wanted to maintain ObamaCare’s community rating protection for people with pre-existing conditions. Many moderate Republican lawmakers also pledged to protect that provision at town halls over the recess.

 

These new changes will be a test of whether moderate Republicans lawmakers will hold to that position.

 

Conservatives argue that funding for high-risk pools will allow for people with pre-existing conditions to get coverage. Democrats counter that high-risk pools were underfunded and did not work before ObamaCare.  The new amendment would also not change deep Medicaid cuts and coverage losses that moderates have objected to.

A previously scheduled conference call for all House GOP lawmakers on Saturday will be a chance to discuss the changes.

via http://ift.tt/2oTQa4L Tyler Durden