Daily Archives: 17 September 2012

How’s That Working Out For You?

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some more data on our economic condition:

  • US wholesale prices in August had the largest one-month gain in more than three years
  • The producer-price index, which measures how much manufacturers and wholesalers pay for finished goods, increased a seasonally adjusted 1.7% in August from July
  • Prices for intermediate goods—which are semifinished goods, like lumber or flour, that require further processing—grew 1.1% in August from July
  • Prices of raw materials increased 5.8% in August, suggesting prices for finished goods will rise further in the future
  • [I]nitial jobless claims were up 15,000 to a seasonally adjusted 382,000 in the week ended Sep 8.  Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected “only” 370,000 new applications

And these data [emphasis mine]:

The income of the typical US family has fallen to levels last seen in 1995.  Census Bureau said annual household income fell in 2011 for the fourth straight year to an inflation-adjusted $50,054.  …it will be a generation before Americans regain the peak income levels reached at the close of the ’90s

Here’s a graph of what that looks like:

Notice that: Not only is income much lower than the Evil Bush years, it’s still falling.

The monthlies are snapshots, and should be taken with a grain of salt, certainly.  But they also bear watching, especially in light of those falling incomes under the Obama administration, and the inflation trap his Fed chief, Ben Bernanke, is building in with all that dollar injection.

And the guy who sometimes sits in the President’s chair actually said this, as though he believed it,

[W]e have made progress digging our way out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression[.]

Our Judiciary’s Selective Enforcement

Posted on by
Reply

The Ninth Circuit strikes again.  The Ninth agreed with a Federal district court that an Idaho law that lets state authorities bring criminal charges against pregnant women who seek abortions by using medications purchased online would likely be found unconstitutional (the Ninth Circuit ruling can be found here).  The Ninth, however, overruled the lower court’s enforcement injunction, saying it was too broad.  Instead, the Ninth substituted its own injunction: state authorities are enjoined only from enforcing the Idaho law against the particular woman who brought the case, not from enforcing the law everywhere else.

The WSJ‘s Law Blog provides a summary of the case:

In May 2011, Mark Hiedeman, the prosecuting attorney in Bannock County, Idaho, brought criminal charges against Jennie Linn McCormack, an unmarried mother of three, after she purchased medications over the Internet in 2010 to terminate her pregnancy.  There are no licensed healthcare providers who offer abortions in southeastern Idaho and Ms McCormack, who didn’t want to have additional children, claimed the medications were prescribed by a physician outside of Bannock County.

The lower court set aside the case against McCormack and enjoined the prosecutor from enforcing the law against anyone on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.

Set aside your views of abortion for a moment, and consider what this appellate court has done vis-à-vis the injunction.

The law under which Hiedeman attempted to prosecute McCormack was found by the district court to be unconstitutional, and the Ninth agreed: it is likely be found unconstitutional.  Yet the Ninth then overruled the district court’s injunction against enforcing that law at all.

Their logic centers on the premise that the law has not yet, in fact, been found unconstitutional, and so the original broad injunction went too far.  Yet injunctions, by their nature, are temporary—even permanent ones, which can be withdrawn for any number of reasons at any later date when they’re found no longer to be useful.

So where is the harm done by the lower court’s broader injunction?  The state is harmed by not being able to enforce a law that is, nominally, legitimate.  Women are harmed by being threatened with prosecution—and potentially prosecuted and convicted—for acting as McCormack did and who is protected from prosecution for those same actions by the injunction as modified by the Ninth.  The women who are under the gun here, also are in a time-sensitive situation: their pregnancy must be terminated promptly, or not at all.  We the People are harmed by this court’s announcement that selective enforcement of a law, as a matter of state policy, is entirely legitimate.

This is a rule of law question, regardless of what we might think of the legitimacy of abortion itself.