HIT & RUN BLOG

If you’re using an RSS feed to help keep track of Hit & Run blog posts or the Reason 24/7 news feed, Aaron Swartz gets some of the credit. The young programmer helped developed them.

He committed suicide Friday at the young age of 26. Via Wired:

When he was a 14 years old, Aaron helped develop the RSS standard; he went on to found Infogami, which became part of Reddit. But more than anything Aaron was a coder with a conscience: a tireless and talented hacker who poured his energy into issues like network neutrality, copyright reform and information freedom.  Among countless causes, he worked with Larry Lessig at the launch of the Creative Commons, architected the Internet Archive’s free public catalog of books, OpenLibrary.org, and in 2010 founded Demand Progress, a non-profit group that helped drive successful grassroots opposition to SOPA last year.

“Aaron was steadfast in his dedication to building a better and open world,” writes Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle. “He is among the best spirits of the Internet generation. I am crushed by his loss, but will continue to be enlightened by his work and dedication.”

Swartz was a victim of bullying. Not from jocks of frat boys targeting a brilliant tech nerd for being too smart. Rather, he was being harassed by the government – the Department of Justice specifically – for his activism in trying to make academic journals and public court records freely available online:

JSTOR provides searchable, digitized copies of academic journals online. MIT had a subscription to the database, so Aaron brought a laptop onto MIT’s campus, plugged it into the student network and ran a script called keepgrabbing.py that aggressively — and at times disruptively — downloaded one article after another. When MIT tried to block the downloads, a cat-and-mouse game ensued, culminating in Swartz entering a networking closet on the campus, secretly wiring up an Acer laptop to the network, and leaving it there hidden under a box. A member of MIT’s tech staff discovered it, and Aaron was arrested by campus police when he returned to pick up the machine.

The JSTOR hack was not Aaron’s first experiment in liberating costly public documents. In 2008, the federal court system briefly allowed free access to its court records system, Pacer, which normally charged the public eight cents per page. The free access was only available from computers at 17 libraries across the country, so Aaron went to one of them and installed a small PERL script he had written that cycled sequentially through case numbers, requesting a new document from Pacer every three seconds, and uploading it to the cloud. Aaron pulled nearly 20 million pages of public court documents, which are now available for free on the Internet Archive.

Swartz did not profit from these activities whatsoever and JSTOR reportedly did not pursue any sort of justice for his intrusive but ultimately harmless hack. Nevertheless, federal prosecutors went after him, charging him with 13 federal counts. A trial was set for April. Alex Stamos was helping as an expert to prepare Swartz’s defense – Swartz faced the possibility of 35 years in prison – and details here the absurdity of the intensity of the DOJ’s efforts against the young man:

If I had taken the stand as planned and had been asked by the prosecutor whether Aaron’s actions were “wrong”, I would probably have replied that what Aaron did would better be described as “inconsiderate”. In the same way it is inconsiderate to write a check at the supermarket while a dozen people queue up behind you or to check out every book at the library needed for a History 101 paper.

In June, I wrote about efforts by activists to open access to government-funded academic research.  They filed a petition at the White House’s “We the People” site. It received more than 50,000 signatures, twice the threshold needed to get a response from the administration.

This past week, the White House responded to recent trollish petitions about seceding from the union, deporting Piers Morgan, and building a Death Star. Yet it still has not responded to the open access petition.

Reflexive calls for Washington to pick up the tab in the wake of Hurricane Sandy underscore one of the greatest shifts of power in American politics during the last four decades: the transition from state and local autonomy to federal subsidy and control. This centralization of government, writes Veronique de Rugy, was made possible largely by grants-in-aid, money provided by the federal government to state and local governments or private parties. They have become the third largest category in the federal budget, trailing only Social Security and national defense.

A new poll finds Americans have little stomach “for policies that would constrain consumer choices...such as limits on the amount or type of food that can be purchased or taxes on unhealthy foods or drinks.” The national poll, released last week by the Associated Press/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research at the University of Chicago, contains several “[s]ignificant findings” that bolster the case for letting individuals and families make their own food decisions free from government interference. Baylen Linnekin explains why these results are a welcome shot in the arm for supporters of the food freedom movement—and a shot across the bow of its opponents.

I happened to be watching CNBC's Closing Bell this afternoon which featured a segment in which various analysts were trying to explain the upbeat equities markets. One of the analysts was Michael Pento, of Pento Portfolio Strategies, who decried again the "Keynesian counterfeiters with their Kamikaze monetary and fiscal policies have taken over the developed world."

In any case, the discussion turned to how Congress and President Obama's administration could screw up the economy over the upcoming debt ceiling crisis, etc. To describe the situation, everyone on the panel was using the conventional metaphor of Congress and the Feds "shooting themselves in the foot." Toward the end, the irrepressible Mr. Pento, said something along the lines of (I've failed to find the video so far, I will try to link to it later):

Not only are Congress and the Feds shooting themselves in the foot, but by racking up trillions of dollars in debt, they're shooting our children in the head.

Insensitive lout that I am, I thought it was actually a pretty good metaphor for the point Pento was making. However, one of the CNBC presenters (not Maria Bartiromo, but another guy who's not the usual co-host) was evidently offended. When the camera switched back to him, he rather frostily asked Pento if he'd like to change the way he characterized public policy? Pento looked confused. Once the segment was over, the presenter made it clear that he thought that gun metaphors, especially those involving children, to describe disastrous fiscal policies were inappropriate.

No actual children were harmed by the metaphor, but Federal fiscal policy definitely will.

As we approach the debt ceiling, suggests for workarounds are getting more creative—and more depressing. For those who can't quite stomach the trillion dollar platinum coin but prefer funny money to constitutional crisis, comes this suggestion from Edward Kleinbard, former chief counsel at the Joint Committee on Taxation and a law professor at USC: 

There is a plausible course of action, one that the president should publicly adopt in the coming weeks as his contingency plan should debt-ceiling negotiations falter. He should threaten to issue scrip — “registered warrants” — to existing claims holders (other than those who own actual government debt) in lieu of money. Recipients of these I.O.U.’s could include federal employees, defense contractors, Medicare service providers, Social Security recipients and others.

The scrip would not violate the debt ceiling because it wouldn’t constitute a new borrowing of money backed by the credit of the United States. It would merely be a formal acknowledgment of a pre-existing monetary claim against the United States that the Treasury was not currently able to pay. 

Sounds crazy and fiscally irresponsible? Well, California did it, so....it's probably crazy and fiscally irresponsible, even though it worked out OK for them once in 2009:

California addressed its budget crisis by issuing 450,000 registered warrants, totaling $2.6 billion, to individual and business claimants, including recipients of aid programs, recipients of tax refunds and government contractors. Those holders who needed immediate cash were usually able to sell their registered warrants to banks at face value, though some institutions limited such purchases.

Whether as a result of public shaming, pressure from banks or a newfound sense of responsibility, the Legislature quickly worked out a budget deal and the scrip was then redeemed for cash.

Throughout the ordeal, California continued to pay its public debt service in cash and on schedule and never lost an investment-grade credit rating.

As The Washington Post has noted, the scheme has some weak points:

It wasn’t exactly popular (one item on the State Controller’s FAQ on the program is “Who can I call to complain about this?”), and big banks such as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Citigroup stopped accepting deposits of the warrants after a couple of weeks, but credit unions accepted them throughout, and the program kept the state in business for two months.

And unlike California, the feds probably couldn't pay interest in those IOUs, which might result in more significant unrest.

But hey, anything to avoid actually cutting spending and reforming entitlements, I guess!

Hot on the heels (so to speak) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's declaration a couple of days ago that 2012 was the hottest year on record in the lower 48 states, the U.S. Global Change Research Program released earlier today the draft version of its National Climate Assessment [downloadable] report. From the executive summary:

Climate change is already affecting the American people. Certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense, including heat waves, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts. Sea level is rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glaciers and arctic sea ice are melting. These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity.

Many impacts associated with these changes are important to Americans’ health and livelihoods and the ecosystems that sustain us. These impacts are the subject of this report. The impacts are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges, and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures. While some changes will bring potential benefits, such as longer growing seasons, many will be disruptive to society because our institutions and infrastructure have been designed for the relatively stable climate of the past, not the changing one of the present and future. Similarly, the natural ecosystems that sustain us will be challenged by changing conditions. Using scientific information to prepare for these changes in advance provides economic opportunities, and proactively managing the risks will reduce costs over time.

Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. This evidence has been compiled by scientists and engineers from around the world, using  satellites, weather balloons, thermometers, buoys, and other observing systems. The sum total of this evidence tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming.

U.S. average temperature has increased by about 1.5°F since 1895; more than 80% of this increase has occurred since 1980. The most recent decade was the nation’s hottest on record. Though most regions of the U.S. are experiencing warming, the changes in temperature are not uniform. In general, temperatures are rising more quickly at higher latitudes, but there is considerable observed variability across the regions of the U.S.

U.S. temperatures will continue to rise, with the next few decades projected to see another 2°F to 4°F of warming in most areas. The amount of warming by the end of the century is projected to correspond closely to the cumulative global emissions of greenhouse gases up to that time: roughly 3°F to 5°F under a lower emissions scenario involving substantial reductions in emissions after 2050 (referred to as the “B1 scenario”), and 5°F to 10°F for a higher emissions scenario assuming continued increases in emissions (referred to as the “A2 scenario”) (Ch. 2)

The policy relevant line from the report is:

Large reductions in global emissions, similar to the lower emissions scenario (B1) analyzed in this assessment, would be necessary to avoid some of the worst impacts and risks of climate change.

I suspect that President Barack Obama will break his silence over climate change policy in his upcoming second inaugural speech. For the record, it is still my judgement that the balance of scientific evidence indicates that man-made global warming is real and is a problem. The question remains: Is What Governments Are Likely to Do About It Worse than Global Warming?

Here's a video from investment guru and author Peter Schiff which argues that the federal government chronically undercounts inflation.

It's an interesting piece, whether you agree with Schiff that consumer prices are obviously rising faster than official inflation rates calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (just going to the BLS' website is enough to convince you they have no idea of what they're doing). The rate for November 2012 came in under 2 percent and Ben Bernanke has pledged to keep money loose as a goose as long as the inflation rates stays below 2.5 percent or so.

Schiff starts out by granting that all the money that has been pumped into the system via fiscal and monetary stimulus should have resulted in inflation. Indeed, stimulatarians such as Paul Krugman argue that the lack of inflation in official numbers proves that the economy needs even more money pumped into it. Schiff says that the Consumer Price Index is created in such a way that it's missing rising prices.

Like I said, whether you agree with him about that main point, you'll find a lot of interesting stuff above.

This November, voters in Los Angeles approved a referendum, backed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, requiring actors in porn films shot in the county to wear condoms. The measure passed with 55.9 percent of the vote. That law is now being challenged by Vivid Entertainment, a porn company, which argues that the ban is a violation of the right to free speech and expression.

More from the AP:

The suit, filed Thursday in federal court, also contends that the law is vague, burdensome and ineffective and is pre-empted by California laws and regulations. It asks the court to block the measure's enforcement and to rule it unconstitutional…

Adult film actors rallied to oppose the law before its November passage.

"The idea of allowing a government employee to come and examine our genitalia while we're on set is atrocious," sex film star Amber Lynn told the Los Angeles Daily News at the time.

Industry critics also said that fans don't want to see actors using condoms. They contend that if the law is enforced, the 200 or so companies that now produce adult films in Los Angeles, primarily in the San Fernando Valley, will simply move elsewhere, taking with them as many as 10,000 jobs.

Oh California.

Reason TV previewed the LA referendum in October:

• White House officials confirm the administration is still committed to pushing for an “assault weapons” ban beyond any discussion of universal background checks.
• The City of Camden, N.J., will pay $3.5 million to 88 people whose convictions were overturned due to widespread police corruption. Five officers face accusations of planting evidence and filing false reports. Their entire police force is being disbanded.
• A young DREAM Act supporter and immigration activist and her family were raided by ICE. She and her brother are safe under President Barack Obama’s program for younger illegal immigrants. Her mother does not have the same protection.
• Obama and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai are meeting today to discuss U.S. troop withdrawals. There had been discussion of the possibility of pulling all troops from Afghanistan, but at a press conference today, Obama said remaining troops would move to a support role.
• Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to explore the possibility of privatizing Midway Airport.
• Authorities in Georgia are looking for help investigating the shooting death of a gun enthusiast with one of the most popular video channels on YouTube.

Have a news tip for us? Send it to: 24_7@reason.com.

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter: @reason247.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to sign up for Reason’s daily updates for more content

Now that he is officially retired from Congress, Ron Paul has left behind a contest legacy. Through his Republican presidential runs in 2008 and 2012, he conjured a large and dedicated army of libertarian activists and politicos where one hadn’t existed before. Two thriving organizations, Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty, arose from those campaigns and survive his congressional career.

But can lasting change within our sclerotic political system arise from a movement as insurrectionist and outside the mainstream as Paul’s? And will he have any heirs to keep the movement alive? A vote total of 2.1 million is an impressive number, to be sure, writes Senior Editor Brian Doherty, especially for such a harsh critic of empire, drug wars, and fiat money. But it still represents a decidedly losing portion of what was, nationally in 2012, a losing party. Will Paul’s radical ideas stick around now that he’s gone from Capitol Hill?

Project SAM, the anti-marijuana legalization group started by former Obama administration advisor Kevin Sabet and chaired by former Congressman Patrick Kennedy (D-Rhode Island), has unveiled its website and policy goals.

Topping the list is the recommendation "[t]hat possession or use of a small amount of marijuana be a civil offense subject to a mandatory health screening and marijuana-education program. Referrals to treatment and/or social-support services should be made if needed. The individual could even be monitored for 6-12 months in a probation program designed to prevent further drug use." 

Kennedy announced his involvement with Project SAM, which stands for "smart approaches to marijuana," earlier this month. Sabet is on the organization's board, and president of the group's umbrella organization, the drug policy consulting firm Policy Solutions Lab. Newsweek/Daily Beast columnist David Frum is also on Project SAM's board.

While the group's existence has been public for less than a week, the Marijuana Policy Project has already called for Kennedy to resign. 

"Former Congressman Patrick Kennedy is the chairman of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), a new national organization that wants to force marijuana consumers into treatment and subject them to mandatory health screenings and 'marijuana education' camps," reads a petition from the Marijuana Policy Project. 

You can read rest of Project SAM's policy positions after the jump. 

"The Problem with Hurricane Sandy Aid" is the latest from Reason TV. 

Watch above or click on the link below for video, full text, supporting links, downloadable versions, and more Reason TV clips. 

President Barack Obama and his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, met at the White House today as plans emerged for a possible complete withdrawal of U.S. troops at the 2014 deadline. The meeting came with an announcement that a drawdown of U.S. troops would actually begin this spring, with U.S. forces moving into a “support role.”

“What that translates into precisely… is something that isn’t yet fully determined,” the president said in response to a question about how fast the drawdown would be or how many troops might remain after 2014. Obama did say that what comes after 2014 ”is a very limited mission [training and assisting Afghan forces and hunting down remnants of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates] and it is not one that would require the same kind of footprint, obviously, that we’ve had in Afghanistan over the past ten years.”

For his part, Karzai told reporters it wasn’t for Afghanistan to decide those specifics. “It’s an issue for the United States,” he said. “Numbers are not going to make a difference to the situation in Afghanistan. It’s the broader relationship that will make a difference to Afghanistan and beyond in the region.”

The major sticking point appeared to be immunity for U.S. troops, which Obama noted is something U.S. troops enjoy everywhere they’re stationed. Apparently, if immunity is granted, the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is envisioned, at least by Karzai, to be like the U.S. presence in Germany or Turkey.

Despite the talking today, the U.S. and Afghanistan have already entered a broad agreement keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan for a decade past 2014. As recently as two months ago, one Marine General told Congress troops would certainly have to stay past 2014 to present a “clear and compelling narrative of commitment” in Afghanistan. It appears administration officials would like to keep 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan past 2014.

The president sidestepped a question about whether the war in Afghanistan was worth the cost in blood and treasure, talking instead about why the U.S. went to war and how the U.S. was able to "decapitate" Al-Qaeda, while Karzai doubled down on his assertion that corruption in his country is largely due to foreign influence.

Of note, while the Afghan president discussed how he would have to sell the idea of immunity and U.S. presence in Afghanistan to the Afghan people, there was no mention of the American people’s, or even Congress’, say on the future role of the U.S. in Afghanistan. 

Yesterday Malian President Dioncounda Traoré asked the French to help halt the advance of Al Qaeda-linked militants who have taken over the north of Mali. Since requesting French assistance the Malian army has been pushed back from at least one engagement by the militants, who are moving south. French President François Hollande said that he was prepared to assist, but only within a U.N. framework. The U.N. Security Council called for a “swift deployment” of troops to the region. 

The deployment was swift. Only a matter of hours after the U.N. Security Council called for troops to be deployed it was reported that French troops (whose status remains unclear) are in Mali and that planes from the French air force are assisting Malian forces.

Hollande justified the quickly developing intervention, saying that it was allowed under international law and had been agreed to with Traoré.

It is too early to tell how effective French support will be in halting the militants’ advance south. Part of the difficulty will be identifying the enemy. An article appearing in The Guardian featured a statement from a local journalist that summarized some of the potential difficulties:

On Thursday rebels captured the town of Konna, less than 40 miles from the strategic city and army base of Mopti. The situation in Konna is described as complicated, with army personnel still in the town but rebels now in control.

"There are Islamists controlling Konna, but they are integrated into the population, it is very difficult for the army to fight them," said Boubakar Hamadoun, editor of the Bamako-based newspaper Mali Demain, who has reporters based in the north. "It is a very complicated situation."

Perhaps more worrying that the nature of the conflict is that Hollande has not set a deadline for the intervention, saying that, “This operation will last as long as is necessary."

The French government is intervening in Mali because there is concern that Mali could become an Al Qaeda stronghold from which terrorist attacks on Europe could be launched. However, as at least one French official has pointed out, the intervention could lead to terrorist attacks on French soil.

As J.D. Tuccille noted this morning, "universal background checks" are emerging as a leading contender for the something that must be done by Congress in response to last month's massacre at Sandy Hook Elemenetary School. "There's a natural gravity that happens toward the ['assault weapon'] ban in the wake of tragedies," Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, tells The New York Times. “But it's very important to point out that background checks could have an even bigger impact."

Although the impulse to demand a ban on "assault weapons" after a mass shooting does resemble a reflex, in the sense that it is automatic and entails no thought, I would not call it "natural." It is a conditioned response instilled by people like Gross, who continue to peddle the lie that there is something uniquely dangerous about the guns included in this arbitrarily defined category. But I will agree with Gross on this point: Since reinstating the federal ban on "assault weapons" will have zero effect on the frequency of mass shootings or the number of people killed in them, expanding the background check requirement could be almost totally ineffective and still have a bigger impact.

That does not mean it is a good idea, however. Here are some questions to keep in mind if, as the Times predicts, "universal background checks" get a warmer reception from Congress than Dianne Feinstein's latest hodgepodge of "military characteristics":

1. How universal? After the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, Colorado voters approved a ballot measure that requires everyone who buys firearms at a gun show to undergo a federal background check. If the seller is not a licensed gun dealer, he has to get someone who is to run the check. According to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, five other states (California, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island) have similar rules, while an additional three states (Connecticut, Maryland, and Pennsylvania) require background checks at gun shows only for handguns. (There are also seven states—Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Nebraska—that require handgun buyers to obtain permits, a process that involves a background check.) Now Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper wants to go further, requiring background checks for private sales that do nor occur at gun shows, which are said to account for 40 percent of gun purchases in his state. That policy seems tantamount to banning private sales, since a licensed dealer with access to the National Instant Check System would have to be involved in every transaction. And if Hickenlooper is serious about making the requirement universal, simply giving your guns to someone—a father passing his hunting rifle to his son, for instance—also would have to be criminalized.

2. How would the requirement be enforced? The Washington Post reports that the gun control task force headed by Vice President Joe Biden, which is expected to make its recommendations next week, "is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers [and] track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database." To make the background check requirement stick, you have to know where the guns are at any given time and when they change hands. So now we are talking about a national registry of gun owners, enabling the federal government to make sure everyone who obtains a firearm is allowed to have one. If he's not, presumably he can expect a not-so-friendly visit from federal agents, who might merely confiscate the gun but could also arrest him for violating the Gun Control Act of 1968, which is punishable by up to five years in prison. The Times reports that "some [Obama administration] officials would like to expand mandatory minimum sentences for gun law violations."

3. Do we want better enforcement? As I noted last month, the categories of people prohibited by federal law from buying or owning guns are absurdly broad, including the 40 million or so Americans (probably considerably more) who qualify as "unlawful user[s] of...any controlled substance" and anyone who has been convicted of a felony, whether or not it involved violence or even a victim. Universal background checks, combined with the improved data collection that also is widely perceived as an eminently sensible response to mass shootings, would unjustly strip millions of people of their Second Amendment rights and subject them to criminal penalties for actions that harm no one.

4. How is this supposed to prevent mass murder? Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, an expert on mass shootings, notes that "most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization," so "they would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally." And if they were, he adds, "mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends."  

"At a time when smoking marijuana is increasingly mainstream, legal and socially acceptable, when and where to inhale is a question flummoxing regular smokers, part-time partakers and nonsmokers alike," writes Kyle Spencer in the Washington Post.

In many parts of the country, marijuana users are flummoxed about how to explain their arrest records to current and future employers, how to regain custody of their children from the state, how to make all their drug court appearances, how to pay mandatory substance abuse counseling fees, and how to get their seized vehicles returned so that they can go to work and drug court and mandatory substance abuse counseling. 

In D.C., marijuana users are worried about etiquette: 

A new challenge is figuring out how we’re all supposed to navigate dinners, cocktail parties, barbecues and cross-generational family get-togethers as more people liken puffing on a joint to sipping a glass of wine, while others still consider it a malodorous habit that’s best done not at all, or at least far from our house.

Here in D.C., it is far from a partisan debate, something that both Republicans and Democrats struggle with. “It’s a cross-party issue,” said a 27-year-old aide to a GOP congressman who, like many interviewed for this story, preferred not to give her name, further highlighting people’s discomfort with this subject. She says she smokes often at home, but does so without telling her ultraconservative, 50-something boss, her co-workers, or even many of her friends. “It’s really hard to know how people stand on it.”

If you've ever wondered why Washington, D.C. is so languorous about confronting our failed war on drugs, it's because there is no war on drugs in Washington, D.C. Not if you're white, that is. At every party I've been to since moving to D.C.--so many parties, dear reader!--pot was present. The party G. Gordon Liddy's producer threw in Northern Virginia? People smoked pot there. The house-warming party hosted by an active duty air force officer? People smoked pot there, too. I've seen an Obama speechwriter smoke pot, and a McCain advisor smoke pot, and I even smoked pot with a congressional staffer whose boss was working on anti-marijuana legislation. (All of us are going to hell.) 

That's not to say D.C. is Haight-Ashbury. White elites can, if they're obnoxiously indiscreet, catch some heat. But even the heat is different. CBS reporter Howard Arenstein and his wife learned that in 2010 when a Georgetown neighbor called the cops to report the 11 massive, stinky marijuana plants growing in Arenstein's backyard. In many states, 11 plants would be more than enough for jail time. In D.C., the arresting officer didn't bother to show up to Arenstein's hearing, so his charges were dropped. 

Is it any wonder that pot-smoking elites in D.C. worry more about party fouls than the externatlities of the drug war? As far as these people concerned, there is no drug war. 

Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown released his proposed budget for 2013-14 Thursday, increasing education spending while having an extremely optimistic outlook of California’s economic future.

What’s getting most attention (because the increased spending and rosy outlook were already gimmes in the reporting of the state’s economy), is Brown’s declaration that the state’s budget deficit – estimated at well over $20 billion just last summer – was all but gone.

Not getting as much reporting (in favor of pretending the state has faced deep-to-the-bone cuts) is that the state’s deficit is being turned into debt.  To be fair to Brown, though, he’s not ignoring it in his budget summary (pdf):

The state’s budget challenges have been exacerbated by the Wall of Debt—an unprecedented level of debts, deferrals, and budgetary obligations accumulated over the prior decade. In 2013‑14 alone, the state will dedicate $4.2 billion to repay this budgetary borrowing—paying for the expenses of the past, instead of meeting current needs. Moving forward, continuing to pay down the Wall of Debt is key to increasing the state’s fiscal capacity. In 2011, the level of outstanding budgetary borrowing totaled $35 billion.

Brown is also aware in the report that California’s upcoming recovery is based mostly on projections that may turn out to be a bit too optimistic. California is also participating in the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, and rising health care costs are noted as a potential budget buster. The budget adds $1.2 billion to state Health and Human Services agencies. Even California is waking up to the possibility that the Affordable Care Act might not actually make care more affordable.

While Brown may give good lip service to the state “living within its means” in speeches and in his summary, the high-speed rail plan still lives. The funding for the initial segment in the Central Valley has already been budgeted and is expected to begin construction later this year. Brown has proposed in the past using the money the state was hoping to get from its upcoming cap-and-trade auctions to possibly help fund the train’s $68 billion price tag. He is still proposing using cap-and-trade revenues in his latest summary to help fund the train. And that’s a problem, because the first auctions in November brought in a grand total of $55 million to the state. The state was expecting to rake in $1 billion in its first auction. $55 million won’t even get the union workers who will be guaranteed all the jobs building the train out of their beds.

Calling for fiscal responsibility while pushing this boondoggle is the equivalent of President Barack Obama insisting the federal government has more important problems than marijuana users while the Drug Enforcement Agency continues raiding legally operating pot dispensaries. If the economy doesn’t improve as projected, California is hosed. If the economy does improve, Californians can enjoy watching their revenue get thrown away at absurd, ego-driven, crony-enriching public projects.

As my colleagues at Reason 24/7 noted yesterday, Slate is running an article, "About That Overpopulation Problem," the subhed of which notes, "Research suggests we may actually face a declining world population in the coming years."Perhaps it's a bit churlish of me, but I can't help but observe that it's about time that the folks over at Slate caught up with the data.

The article cites projections from Austria's International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis that suggest that the global population will top out at 9 billion some time around 2070 and then begin declining. In fact, Slate notes, if fertility rates subsequently hover around the European average of 1.5 children per woman, world population will be cut in half by 2200 and drop to about 1 billion in 2300.

So why are fertility rates declining? Slate argues:

The reason for the implacability of demographic transition can be expressed in one word: education. One of the first things that countries do when they start to develop is educate their young people, including girls. That dramatically improves the size and quality of the workforce. But it also introduces an opportunity cost for having babies. “Women with more schooling tend to have fewer children,” says William Butz, a senior research scholar at IIASA.

Well, yes. But Slate's answer begs a prior question: What causes countries to develop? Short answer: Liberty and the rule of law. In my 2009 column, "The Invisible Hand of Population Control" I reported:

Let's take a look at two intriguing lists. The first is a list of countries ranked on the 2009 Index of Economic Freedom issued by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. Then compare the economic freedom index rankings with a list of countries ranked by their total fertility rates. Of the 30 countries that are ranked as being free or mostly free, only three have fertility rates above 2.1, e.g., New Zealand at 2.11, the Bahamas at 2.13, and Bahrain at 2.53. If one adds the next 53 countries that are ranked as moderately free, one finds that only 8 out of 83 countries have fertility rates above 3. It should be noted that low fertility rates can also be found in more repressive countries as well, e.g., China at 1.77, Cuba at 1.6, Iran at 1.71, and Russia at 1.4.

In 2002, Seth Norton, a business economics professor at Wheaton College in Illinois, published a remarkably interesting study on the inverse relationship between prosperity and fertility. Norton compared fertility rates of over 100 countries with their index rankings for economic freedom and another index for the rule of law. "Fertility rate is highest for those countries that have little economic freedom and little respect for the rule of law," wrote Norton. "The relationship is a powerful one. Fertility rates are more than twice as high in countries with low levels of economic freedom and the rule of law compared to countries with high levels of those measures."

Norton found that the fertility rate in countries that ranked low on economic freedom averaged 4.27 children per woman while countries with high economic freedom rankings had an average fertility rate of 1.82 children per woman. His results for the rule of law were similar; fertility rates in countries with low respect for the rule of law averaged 4.16 whereas countries with high respect for the rule of law had fertility rates averaging 1.55. 

As California’s toughest cities struggle with violent crime, we are hearing a familiar refrain: “Hire more police officers.” While more cops may be the right answer in some places, writes Steven Greenhut, public officials need to consider a wider array of crime-fighting options and examine ways to stretch their existing budgets. Considering the recent wave of police abuse cases, what California really needs is a more accountable and professional police force and not just more officers toting expensive gadgets.

As we get closer to the scheduled implementation of ObamaCare's major coverage provisions, we're seeing even more evidence of what many of the law's critics warned: Many individuals will see their health insurance premiums rise in the wake of the law.

We've already seen big premium hikes in a handful states. Now a study from the consulting firm Oliver Wyman projects that the law's insurance restrictions will raise health insurance prices for young people.

The study estimates that people in their 20s could see hikes in the range of 42 percent. Those in their 30s could see premium hikes of about 31 percent. That's because the law restricts how much insurers can restrict premiums based on an individual's age; insurers can charge older individuals no more than three times what they charge the young. Which means that younger individuals will have to balance out the greater costs of older beneficiaries; it essentially forces the young to subsidize health insurance coverage for the old.  

The insurance industry is warning that this could cause breakdown in the health insurance market, at least for the first few years. Via The Hill:

The lead advocacy group for U.S. health plans recently petitioned the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department to delay its implementation of the 3:1 rule.

"Higher rates for the younger population combined with low mandate penalties during the first years of the ACA implementation will result in adverse selection because younger individuals are likely to choose not to purchase coverage," America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) wrote in comments to HHS.

"When these younger individuals do not enroll, destabilization of the individual market will occur, premiums will increase in the individual market for enrollees of all ages, and enrollment will decline."

This sort of effect, often referred to as an insurance death spiral, would not be entirely unprecedented. Prior to ObamaCare's passage, several states enacted similar restrictions on how insurers could structure their charges. The result? Individual insurance market meltdowns in which higher premiums led people to drop coverage, leading to even higher premiums, and so on until the individual markets basically ceased to exist. ObamaCare may not lead to effects quite that drastic. But it seems more than clear that higher premiums and insurance market instability are on the way. 

There was once a radical left in the United States. Back then, it was common to hear on college campuses and in respectable left-wing publications that liberals and the Democratic Party were the enemies of freedom, justice, and the people. There was widespread left-wing rejection of the liberal claim that government was good, and many leftists spoke of and stood for a thing they called liberty.

There was no better exemplar of that thoroughgoing, anti-statist left than Howard Zinn, the author of A People’s History of the United States, writes Thaddeus Russell.

We'll have to wait until Tuesday to see the details of Vice President Joe Biden's 2016 presidential campaign platform gun control recommendations, but already we know that it's likely be heavy on pandering to the gun-averse political base, and light on anything that might leave the administration dangling in the breeze when it comes to the hard business of enforcement. (You'll note that I didn't say "effective" because, when it comes to reducing crime or violence, restrictions on firearms ownership offer little hope of being "effective.") Biden is steering well clear of anything on which compliance or the lack thereof could be easily measured, such as a ban on existing semi-automatic rifles, and jauntily touting an ethereal "emerging consensus" on "universal background checks" for gun sales, even between private parties, and a ban on the sale of new high-capacity magazines. Passing such restrictions will likely require a battle in Congress, but whether such proposals win or lose, the administration will stroke those supporters who fret over metal objects that make loud noises — and then walk away from the laws they've passed without worrying overly much about having accomplished nothing.

First, huge numbers of high-capacity magazines are already in circulation. Under the last ban, the price went up, but they were still available, and more have been made and sold since. Even if sales of existing magazines are forbidden, they'll still exist, and change hands quietly. That is, aside from the ones that people are already manufacturing on hobbyist 3D printers or in metal shops. Getting existing magazines out of circulation is a non-starter, since nobody knows where they are and most owners are unlikely to surrender them when keeping the things is essentially a risk-free enterprise.

Which is the same problem faced by the "universal background checks" Biden insists are part of the emerging consensus he perceives among the people who already agree with him. The background check brainstorm is a bone thrown to people who heard somewhere about a "gun show loophole" — not realizing that most private owners can sell free of paperwork requirements anywhere, in the majority of states, while commercial dealers have to do background checks, even at gun shows. Americans own an estimated 270 million firearms (PDF), most of them unregistered. Even records in those few states that require some sort of registration are compromised by the fact that owners move out of state, or in-state from elsewhere, and the lists become inaccurate and unreliable over time. A gun owner in New Jersey, for instance, where multiple levels of paperwork are maintained, could move to bureaucracy-free Arizona, then move back to Trenton (for reasons I could never fathom) and plausibly deny still owning any of the guns the state of New Jersey meticulously recorded.

Since the vast majority of firearms exist in private hands with the same status as chainsaws or propane torches — that is, untraceable after the point of sale — a "universal background check" law would be nothing more than a pretty-please request by politicians to expend time, effort and (probably) money running a purchase through a bureaucracy when it could more easily be settled cash-and-carry over a kitchen table. Sure, some people will comply, but that will be a voluntary matter.

But the impotence of a magazine ban and the vast non-compliance a background check law will face will be relatively quiet matters, while the passage of such laws will be like so many Ol' Roy treats tossed to the do-something-now crowd who won't know the difference.

The Sepulveda Dam Basin, the San Fernando Valley oasis where the Los Angeles River gathers for its brief sprint into the Pacific, is one of the great green spaces within the suburban grid of Southern California. Or, I should say, was.

From the LA Weekly comes a story that beggars belief: Just before Christmas, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, without really consulting anybody, bulldozed more than 40 acres of the "prime wildlife and vegetative habitat," partly for reasons of social cleansing:

Corps officials insisted the federal flood-control agency had no choice, in part because cruising gay men and homeless campers had flocked there and endangered the public.

Local law enforcement on the bums-and-gay-sex beat have no idea what the Corps is talking about:

That rationale is news to West Valley Division Los Angeles Police Department Lt. Anne-Marie Fuller, who for six months has overseen vice patrols in Sepulveda Basin in Encino. Fuller tells L.A. Weekly she's unaware of homeless or lewd-behavior problems beyond those commonly seen in parks and woods patrolled by LAPD. "It sounds kind of strange," Fuller says, adding she'd "never heard anything" about a mounting threat to public safety. [...]

Meanwhile, Deputy City Attorney Raffy Astvasadoorian says he has prosecuted only seven minor cases there, for misdemeanor illegal camping, with most fines set at just $100. Corps spokesman Dave Palmer insisted to the Weekly that the complaints it got from law enforcement were "verbal," including from the LAPD and from the City Attorney's Office — but Astvasadoorian denies that city attorneys complained. [...]

A statement from Corps Operations Branch chief Tomas Beauchamp-Hernandez claims that the Corps received public-safety complaints from the city of L.A.'s obscure Office of Public Safety within the Department of General Services, which until Jan. 1 had law enforcement responsibility for the Sepulveda Dam Basin area.

See the Weekly's infuriating before-and-after photos here. As ever, there are few things more terrifying in Southern California than bureaucrats armed with bulldozers.

• The NRA says some members of Joe Biden’s task force are more interested in demonizing he Second Amendment than protecting schoolchildren. Duh?
• Leon Panetta tells Hamid Karzai the U.S. will stand by Afghanistan even as plans emerge for a potential massive withdrawal.
• The government released wholly redacted summaries of foreign intelligence court decisions in response to a FOIA request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation over FISA.
• President Obama has signed a law restoring lifetime Secret Service privileges for himself and George W. Bush. The law also covers former First Ladies and children of presidents until they turn 18.
• A study finds male jurors are more likely to convict fat women, especially if the men are thin.
• The EU’s economic and monetary affairs commissioner says governments on the continent must continue to cut spending after the IMF insisted the cuts are harmful to the economy.
• Major League Baseball will be randomly testing for Human Growth Hormone this baseball season.

Follow Reason on Twitter and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

The updated Reason app for Apple and Android now includes Reason 24/7!

January slouches on with the release of Gangster Squad, a bloody revision of the old Warner Bros. crime films of the 1930s starring Ryan Gosling, Sean Penn, and Josh Brolin. It’s a good-looking picture, reports Kurt Loder, and there’s plenty of smash-and-clamor—car chases, gun fights, and brutal smackdowns abound. But all of this set-piece razzamatazz can’t obscure the fact that there’s virtually no character development, and therefore no reason to care about any of the characters.