Your Friendly Neighborhood Economist

via Your Friendly Neighborhood Economist

Apparently states that shot themselves in the foot (ie. refused Federal money for Medicaid expansion) are now, coincidentally, bleeding from gunshot wounds in the foot (ie. their medical providers are under increasing financial burdens). Whooocouldanode?

Mayor of Salem, MA, no less. A fabulous place for the next step in the shredding of the constitution resulting from the Hobby Lobby case.

really?
‘“You just don’t expect this kind of behavior from a large company like this,” Mr. Passaro said, referring to his long battle for benefits.’
Maybe Mr. Passaro doesn’t, but I do. Anyway, this resistance to paying benefits to same-sex spouses is generally about the bottom line for corporations. Not to say that people in corporations aren’t biased against LGBTQ folks: they are. But corporations, which, despite multiple court rulings to the contrary, are actually not people and do not have opinions, beliefs or attitudes independent of the people who make decisions as owners or employees of those corporations.
However, I predict that the horrible ruling in the Hobbly Lobby case will soon be used by a corporation that has recently “seen the light” (meaning the flashing light on their bottom line, saying “do this to increase me”) to deny benefits to same-sex spouses.

Fascinating. If only the intelligence services would stick to promoting art rather than spying on everyone and chilling free expression. H/t Sam Sebren.

WGXC’s transmitter is down

You can listen to the show at http://wgxc.org. Click on shiny green Listen button.

Unfortunately, the ‘proposed definition of “waters of the United States”’ (on the Environmental Protection Agency page linked in the article) does not show the changes being made as a part of this clarification. It clearly does not imply that puddles in fields will be regulated under the new rule. However, it isn’t clear whether or not ditches that carry runoff from fields directly into navigable waters were considered as regulated before this clarification. I understand how a farmer would incur costs if they’ve got a ditch that runs right into the creek or stream, but the point is, their ditch runs right into that stream, so we don’t want the runoff from their fields to be full of nasty stuff. If this imposes a burden, we should find a way to help out with that so that farmers aren’t going to be wiped out.

Just more to ignore, I guess.