And they won’t learn from their mistakes.

This post went up in revised form at Watchdog.org earlier this evening.

The supposedly conservative and heavily Republican southwestern portion of Ohio had quite a run of big-government failures and failures in the making in 2012. While it would be easy to assign the blame for most of them to the once proudly conservative but now almost hopelessly liberal City of Cincinnati, the city’s suburbs and exurbs have also more than done their part.

To be sure, it’s was pretty bad inside Cincinnati’s city limits. In July, it reopened Washington Park, a now eight-acre land expanse north of downtown, after spending a mind–boggling $48 million for a 450-car underground parking garage, land acquisition, several new facilities and significant renovations. Admittedly, the park’s appearance and amenities represent an impressive improvement over its decrepit prior condition, and, to be fair, about 45% of the funding came from private sources. That said, it’s still hard to imagine how this so-called “investment” will ultimately be worth it. Supporters believe it “will serve as a catalyst for future development of at least 25 surrounding vacant properties.” Let’s see if they’re right in a few years. I doubt it.

Two decades ago, the city said that the heavily subsidized and now half-empty Tower Place shopping complex downtown would be a catalyst for a revival there. An Associated Press report covering the city’s late-November offer to buy the entire mess with $8.5 million it really doesn’t have described it as “a once-thriving downtown Cincinnati mall.” That’s sheer historical revisionism. My recollection is that the mall had high vacancy rates and disappointing shopper traffic virtually since its inception. Just two years after its 1991 opening with the help of $10 million in city “investment,” the now-defunct Cincinnati Post, normally a see-no-evil cheerleader for city commerce, wrote that it “hasn’t been able to meet expectations.” The mall’s situation never really improved, and it has been an economic millstone around the city’s neck for over two decades.

Of course, the city isn’t learning from its mistakes. It’s deciding to make new ones. In February, after two voter initiatives failed to stop it, it broke ground on a four-mile streetcar project with an estimated cost of $102 million before the predictable cost overruns occur.

The government of Hamilton County, where Cincinnati is located, is still paying dearly for its ill-advised decision to build two stadiums for the Reds and Bengals, the city’s professional baseball and football teams.

In 1996, the county’s commissioners convinced taxpayers to approve a sales-tax increase which would supposedly be enough to cover all costs involved while providing property tax relief for homeowners. Sales tax revenues, based on far too rosy projections, weren’t at all sufficient. Sixteen years later, the commissioners didn’t even attempt to force goodwill concessions from the heavily tax-favored teams. Instead, facing a $7 million deficit in the stadium fund, they reneged on half of the property tax rollback in early December by a 2-1 vote while claiming that the de facto tax increase will only be in place for two years. We’ve all heard that before about “temporary” tax increases, haven’t we? The lone vote against the tax increase came from a Democrat.

From Clermont County, Hamilton County’s eastern neighbor and supposedly a Republican and conservative stronghold, came news in November that for reported “financial reasons,” the Jungle Jim’s retail grocery store in the Eastgate area would be laying off 30-40 employees just two months after it opened.  An emailer who lives in the area informed me that this is yet another example of the government trying to pick winners and losers, and — as all too often happens — picking a loser:

Let’s recap: Union Township and Clermont County taxpayers paid $8.5 million for Jungle Jim’s to set up shop even though another merchant was reportedly going to come in on their own accord. … Then we “bailed them out” with $1 million more because they couldn’t make their first payment.

… The market is saturated with eight grocery stores in a two-mile radius. … But they called this “the greatest thing to ever happen to the county.”

… Self-described conservatives … think nothing of government starting businesses with our money, indicating their fundamentally flawed view of government’s proper and intended role.

Government was never designed to interject itself into — and thereby manipulate — the market in order to create jobs; rather it should stay out of the way so that the market can dictate which industries are sustainable.

Sadly, the idea that our local and county governments will learn from their 2012 mistakes and conduct themselves in accordance within a properly limited framework in 2013 is probably way too much to hope for.

… which is why anonymously arming teachers is the best prevention (go to the link if the video below won’t play):

Interesting and valid points:

• A previous school shooting was perpetrated by a milk delivery driver — someone who will always be able to get into a school.
• Police can’t possibly respond quickly enough to mass murder attempts. The school prinicipal noted that recent mass killings have only involved three to nine minutes of time.

From the Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 3.1 percent in the third quarter of 2012 (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the “third” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 1.3 percent.

The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the “second” estimate issued last month. In the second estimate, the increase in real GDP was 2.7 percent (see “Revisions” on page 3). The third estimate has not greatly changed the general picture of the economy for the third quarter except that personal consumption expenditures (PCE) is now showing a modest pickup, and imports is now showing a downturn.

Zero Hedge’s sum-up (bolds and paragraph breaks added by me):

… reading between the lines reveals more of the same disappointing components, with nearly half of the entire 3.1% annualized growth being derived from Government (0.75) and Inventories (0.73%), combined adding 1.48% (more than in the second revision) of the 3.1% print.

Annualized Personal Consumption as a portion of the final number rose modestly from 0.99% to 1.12%, but still is well below the 1.42% in the first Q3 GDP estimate. It is this number that will be closely watched once the preliminary Q4 GDP number is released in a one month.

Recall that Q4 GDP is currently tracking between 0.5% and 1.5% depending who you ask.

Finally, the most important real growth factor for the US economy – fixed investment – remained stubbornly flat, at a mere 0.12%, virtually unchanged from the first revision’s 0.10%. In other words, in Q3 companies stubbornly refused to invest in capital investment i.e. CapEx, and will continue to do so as long as the Fed makes “investing” in dividends and buybacks a more rewarding option.

The inventory component is worse if you look at its elements: -0.38 Farm and +1.11 nonfarm. The negative number is a huge impact for such a relatively small economic sector, which is enough to make one wonder what might be happening to the food supply. The nonfarm number represents a potentially dangerous buildup, given that the fourth quarter is by all accounts not going nearly as well.

Not even a band-aid.

_________________________________

This column went up at FrontPage Magazine earlier this morning.

_________________________________

The other-worldly nature of the current discussions and proposals in Washington over addressing the “fiscal cliff” can be seen in a brief look at where the country stands financially.

Through the first two months of the 2013 fiscal year which will end on September 30, 2013, the federal government has already run up a $292 billion deficit. Our overlords of Washington are clearly on track to run up a fifth consecutive full-year shortfall of over $1 trillion. Before fiscal 2008, the highest annual deficit ever recorded was $455 billion.

Federal outlays during October and November of $638 billion were 16 percent higher than during the same two months in 2011, and a breathtaking 52 percent greater than October and November of 2007. Collections in this lukewarm recovery, if you can even call it that, were up by less than 10 percent.

As of Monday, December 17, the national debt was $16.35 trillion, up by over $5.7 trillion in the 35 months since Barack Obama took office. The portion of the national debt known as “debt held by the public,” which is really debt held by any entity which is not part of the U.S. government but includes foreign countries and other foreign holders, made up $5.25 trillion of that amount.

A significant portion of that $5.25 billion is held by Ben Bernanke’s Federal Reserve, which many don’t realize really isn’t a part of the government. Instead, the Fed is a collection of 12 district banks, each of which is “a legally separate corporation that is owned by the commercial banks in its district.” Because they produce no goods or services, the district banks, and the Fed itself, have no inherent ability to repay the Treasury and other securities they have bought from our beyond-profligate government.

Within this dangerous framework, House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama are obsessing over whether taxes should be raised on those with annual incomes of over $1,000,000 — or $400,000, or $250,000, or whatever. Besides the obvious danger that any tax increase on our most productive citizens will slow down an already sluggish, low-growth, under-employing economy, the amounts raised will be a pittance, garnering less than 10 percent of the amount needed to close projected fiscal gaps (I would say “budget gaps,” but the government hasn’t passed a budget in nearly four years).

Where are the spending cuts? Or, more properly framed, where are the reductions in projected future spending? A Wednesday morning Associated Press dispatch on the President’s plans to veto Boehner’s so-called “Plan B” framework reported that the President would veto such a plan if it ever reached his desk — something that in the real world probably wouldn’t happen because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wouldn’t let any House bill Obama opposes get that far — because “the deficit reduction that would result from the `Plan B’ approach is minimal and offers no spending cuts.”

You read that right. The people who have brought us trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see are positioning themselves to the right of the hopelessly timid Republican House.

Is Obama’s claim correct? Well, Erick Erickson at RedState writes: “The most significant thing John Boehner’s plan does is absolutely nothing on spending.” A Wednesday morning Wall Street Journal editorial identifies what can only be described as nibbling around the edges of the problem by changing how increases in entitlement spending and taxes are indexed, and tells us that it’s all about continuing with business as usual: “Tax and spending increases now, in return for the promise of spending cuts and tax and entitlement reform later.”

We’re long past the time where business as usual will work. The federal government’s financial condition today is the functional equivalent of a family taking home $27,000 per year, spending $38,000, and carrying over $160,000 in nonmortgage debt. The major difference between the family and our government is that while the family inolved would almost certainly be paying 10 percent or more interest on its outstanding debts, Uncle Sam is for now getting away with paying less than 2 percent. Oh, and Uncle Sam can keep on borrowing, while the family’s lenders would surely have ended any access to additional credit.

Even if the example family just described was paying only only 2% interest on its debts, its finances would still be considered almost beyond repair without major changes. Boehner’s Plan B is the equivalent of the family telling its lenders who wish to force them into bankruptcy that it will “solve” their problem by immediately having one of its members get a one day per month job paying $100 and by cancelling their premium cable channels and lawn service — starting a year from now. Maybe. If they feel like it.

Such a proposal would send lenders straight to bankruptcy court, as it would be obvious that this family isn’t at all serious about taking meaningful action. Boehner’s Plan B isn’t any better, and promises to send the credit rating agencies scrambling to see who can lower the federal government’s credit rating first.

Don’t get me wrong, what Obama and his party want — don’t touch Social Security, don’t touch Medicare, and don’t touch any other entitlements — isn’t serious either. But the fact that he can credibly claim that his “solutions” do more that Boehner’s Plan B shows how badly the Speaker has failed.

No wonder genuine conservatives are in open revolt. They should be.

From the Department of Labor:

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending December 15, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 361,000, an increase of 17,000 from the previous week’s revised figure of 344,000. The 4-week moving average was 367,750, a decrease of 13,750 from the previous week’s unrevised average of 381,500.

… UNADJUSTED DATA

The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 400,422 in the week ending December 15, a decrease of 28,766 from the previous week. There were 421,103 initial claims in the comparable week in 2011.

This year’s seasonal adjustment factor was 110.9, compared to 113.7 for the same week a year ago. If last year’s factor had been used on this year’s raw claims number, seasonally adjusted claims would have come in 9,000 lower (400,422 divided by 1.137 is 352,000, rounded).

The previous week was, as usual, revised upward, this time by 1,000 seasonally adjusted claims from last week’s 343,000.

This is a modest improvement, and may be as good as it gets, given that the Christmas shopping numbers are coming in at disappointing levels (Associated Press Headline — “DISCOUNTS ABOUND AS STORES TRY TO SALVAGE SEASON”). However, AP this morning says that today’s number “is consistent with a job market that continues to grow modestly.” The last word should be “inadequately.”

The next three weeks are going to be hard to peg because of the Christmas and New Year holidays; last year’s comparable week in next week’s report will include Christmas Eve.

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.

__________________________________________

from Corsica, South Dakota:

Published: December 14, 2012, 6:06 PM

A Corsica teenager will be honored on a Rose Parade float. Andrea Cleveland died after a car crash last fall but thanks to her organ donations, she helped save five people’s lives.

That action is now representing the Upper Midwest on the Donate Life Float in the Tournament of Roses Parade.

Andrea was a fun-loving, outgoing 16-year-old.

“When she walked in the room, she lit up the room,” Andrea’s father, Jeff Cleveland, said.

But on November 1, 2011, the Corsica teenager lost control of her car on a rural road. She later died at the hospital.

“It took days, maybe weeks for me to realize that she’s actually gone. Every day I’d wait for her to come running down the steps, hearing her footsteps running down to get ready for school,” Andrea’s mother, Marlene Cleveland, said.

One thing that has helped the family heal is the fact that Andrea was an organ donor. Because of that, she was able to save the lives of five people. She also helped others.

“Many people also received tissue grafts from the gifts Andrea gave. She also was able to donate corneas to two people to restore sight,” LifeSource CEO Susan Gunderson said.

The family has met two of the people Andrea helped save: 29-year-old Meleah and two-year-old Keegan.

“It really helped us at Christmas time to know, yah, we’re grieving. I don’t know how we’re going to get through Christmas but then we see the picture of Keegan. Andrea saved this little boy’s life,” Jeff said.

“When they came in the room, I just picked up little Keegan and started hugging and holding him. It’s like holding or hugging Andrea again. I could feel her presence,” Marlene said. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

At his news conference on Wednesday, President Obama opened with a statement of over 1,100 words, all of it on gun violence, including his announcement that “I’ve asked the Vice President to lead an effort that includes members of my Cabinet and outside organizations to come up with a set of concrete proposals no later than January — proposals that I then intend to push without delay.”

That should reasonably have been expected to put the gun control issue to bed for the rest of the day. How many meaningful questions could reporters possibly pose after all of that (other than the one Jake Tapper of ABC asked, which will be seen later in the post)? But as Ben Sisario at the New York Times’s Media Decoder blog reported Wednesday afternoon, that didn’t satisfy many media critics, who — with Sisario seeming to agree — expected and wanted to see an all-gun-control, all-the-time exercise, and were angry that it didn’t unfold that way (bolds are mine throughout this post):

(more…)

If there’s anything “conservative” about Japan’s new government, I’m certainly not seeing it yet (bolds are mine):

Japan’s incoming conservative government said on Wednesday it would launch a huge spending package worth about 10 trillion yen aimed at injecting life into the nation’s limp economy.

The Liberal Democratic Party led by Shinzo Abe will ditch the current spending limit so it can pay for the whopping stimulus, reports said, even as ratings agencies have warned Tokyo over its spending.

“We must work out a supplementary budget urgently,” the party’s deputy head Masahiko Komura told reporters in the Japanese capital.

“From a macroeconomic viewpoint, some 10 trillion yen will probably be needed.”

In his election campaign, Abe vowed to boost infrastructure spending and pressure the Bank of Japan to boost its economic offensive with aggressive stimulus.

The country’s total debt stands at more than twice its gross domestic product, the worst in the industrialised world and a debt burden that has seen global agencies downgrade Japan’s credit rating.

More of the same path the country has been on for what must be close to two decades now isn’t going to solve anything. The country’s Zombie Economy is almost certain to continue.

Looking at the bright side (this is gallows humor, for those who don’t catch it): Unlike last year’s debt-limit battle, those of use who don’t like what John Boehner is doing won’t get called “Hobbitts” by the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board.

That’s about the only positive thing one can say about what John Boehner is trying to push on the Republicans and conservatives. An editorial in the Journal today calls out the pathetic GOP fiscal cliff proposal quite nicely:

It’s clear by now that the budget talks are drifting in a drearily familiar Washington direction: Tax and spending increases now, in return for the promise of spending cuts and tax and entitlement reform later. This is a bad deal for everyone except the politicians who want more money to spend.

Consider the tax increase now being touted as a sign of “compromise.” Speaker John Boehner has moved from opposing higher tax rates to offering higher rates for incomes above $1 million a year. While that’s better than the scheduled increase on incomes above $200,000 a year (for singles), it would still put the GOP on record as endorsing a tax increase, in particular on small businesses that file individual returns.

President Obama has countered with a ceiling of $400,000. If they compromise at $500,000, we are all supposed to thank the two sides for their reasonableness. Yet both parties will have declared that raising tax rates is no big economic deal. This will hurt the economy, and it further advances Mr. Obama’s political goal of separating the middle class from the affluent on tax policy.

What about tax reform next year? A final judgment on this prospect depends on the fine print, but it’s already looking grim. The GOP has prepared the ground for a genuine tax reform, on the Simpson-Bowles model, that lowers rates in return for fewer deductions. In what is shaping up as this budget deal’s prototype, tax reform looks like it means both higher rates and fewer deductions.

This isn’t reform. It’s another tax increase next year disguised as reform. The Fortune 500 CEOs who are lobbying Republicans don’t mind because they hope to get a cut in the corporate tax rate. But small businesses will be stuck with a huge immediate tax increase, at least until their owners can scramble to reorganize as corporations instead of Subchapter S companies or LLCs.

As for spending cuts or entitlement reform, these look notional at best. The only tangible agreement that has been leaked so far is to calculate future tax brackets and entitlement benefits based on “chain-weighted CPI.” This is a more accurate measure of inflation than is currently used and we support it, but it is a small change worth perhaps $270 billion over 10 years.

… None of this is anywhere close to the reforms that might slow the pace of health-care spending, which everyone agrees is the biggest fiscal problem. Look for Mr. Obama to pocket the immediate tax increases, then next year demand another tax increase in return for token entitlement reforms.

The biggest insult to the public’s intelligence is Mr. Obama’s demand for more spending now. We thought this exercise was about deficit reduction.

Thinking micro for the moment — Tax brackets should be indexed to inflation. Entitlement benefits should be indexed to CPI.

The reason should be obvious. While you’re working, you are among other things trying to get your living standard, which in a decent economy (if one ever arrives again) would gradually rise over time. Indexing the tax brackets to inflation effectively keeps the tax system from automatically taking more as a percentage of the median living standard.

But once you’re receiving entitlement benefits paid for by everyone else — at least the retirement-related ones, where the big momney is — your living standard should be considered to be set right where it is for the rest of your life. If you want to improve it, you can always work more, but if you can’t, you’re not being denied anything to which you have any kind of moral claim.

Thinking macro, let’s get back to the editorial:

We think they (Republicans) have more leverage than they believe if they are willing to fight on taxes into next year. But if they’re not, at least they shouldn’t associate themselves with a deal that increases spending and taxes with little or nothing tangible in return.

Let Mr. Obama own the tax increase and its measly 7.5% annual reduction in a $1.1 trillion deficit. Let the sequester take effect as planned, which at least means some spending restraint. Then engage Mr. Obama next year in trench warfare over spending and the debt limit as voters figure out that soaking the rich doesn’t begin to solve the problem. A bad budget deal is worse than no deal at all.

I’m not optimistic that there’s any fight left in the Romneyesque remains of the GOP leadership.

____________________________________________

UPDATE: Erick Erickson –

The spin from Speaker Boehner’s Office on the plan shows you every single reason why this plan is embarrassing and Republicans should be ashamed to support it.

The first bullet point is that “Plan B” “does not raise taxes.” Really? How then does that reconcile with the second bullet point that notes, “Plan B” “permanently extends income tax rate cuts for Americans making less than $1 million, which protects 99.81 percent of all taxpayers”?

Only among the mendacious cast of clowns in Washington can those two bullet points be reconciled together. John Boehner’s plan does raise taxes. But it only does so on people who earn one million dollars or more. He obfuscates this because taxes are set to automatically go up in January. Therefore, by preventing taxes from going up on 99.81% of Americans and letting a tax increase happen anyway, he can claim his plan “does not raise taxes.”

That type of mendacity got us to this point.

The most significant thing John Boehner’s plan does is absolutely nothing on spending. Republicans will raise taxes and lie to the American public about it while doing absolutely nothing on entitlements, spending, or anything else. Oh, but John Boehner notes his plan:

Does not include anything on the debt limit or other non-tax policy items. Remember, Speaker Boehner’s rule on the debt limit still applies: spending cuts must exceed any debt limit increase.

Excuse me while I go vomit.

I hope you have a barf bag, Erick, because the line to use the bathroom is really long.

Cynical political opportunism.

_______________________________

This column went up at PJ Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Monday.

_______________________________

Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who once appeared to be a different kind of leftist politician, is instead demonstrating that there really is no such thing as a different kind of leftist politician — at least when ambition takes over.

That’s too bad. In May, his fellow Democrats, especially including President Barack Obama, made the savaging of GOP challenger Mitt Romney’s successful career heading up private-equity firm Bain Capital a centerpiece of their campaign strategy. At first, Booker pointedly rejected the critique, observing that “I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people invest in companies like Bain Capital,” and that “they’ve done a lot to support businesses [and] to grow businesses.”

But in the first sign that his aspirations reach far beyond New Jersey’s largest city and that he won’t let little things like his own personal convictions and proven facts intervene, Booker backed away from his remarks in the face of withering criticism, saying that it was “reasonable” for the Obama campaign to go after Romney’s business record. In practical terms, this meant that Cory was copasetic with Obama, his surrogates and fellow party members lying shamelessly about that record to win an election.

Booker’s latest stunt, one which has enabled him to gain nearly instant national prominence, is his participation in the bogus “Food Stamp Challenge.”

To be clear, such challenges, if properly designed, could be worthwhile exercises, potentially serving as vehicles for helping financially strapped Americans make wiser, more nutritious and thriftier food choices. Unfortunately, that’s not at all what the Food Stamp Challenge is about. Instead, the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) promotes it to “help raise awareness of hunger in your community and the need to keep SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the government’s official name for food stamps) strong.” That translates in real life to “doing everything we can to keep food stamp benefits on their current expansionary, budget-busting path.” Proof that my assessment is correct is found in FRAC’s most recent research paper, which sets out to convince America, the worldwide leader in obesity, that the USDA’s “Thrifty Food Plan” framework for determining benefits, which has been in place for decades, is woefully inadequate, and that the government should therefore increase monthly food stamp benefits for a family of four by over 30%, or almost $200.

FRAC’s Food Stamp Challenge is supposed to prove “how difficult it is living on the average daily food stamp benefit” of “about $4 per person per day.” Booker used just under $30 as his full-week financial constraint, and predictably concluded his endeavor by calling for a “just and sustainable food system.” The Stanford- and Yale-educated Booker should know that the most just and sustainable food system ever devised goes by the name of Walmart. By totally revamping how groceries are distributed, sold, and tracked, forcing its competitors to imitate them or die, and constantly pushing the low-price envelope, the company has saved and continues to save American families untold billions of after-tax dollars — except in places like Newark, where self-appointed social activists are determined to prevent its appearance.

Both FRAC and  Booker conveniently ignore what the “S” in “SNAP” stands for: “Supplemental.” The USDA’s “Fact Sheet on Resources, Income, and Benefits” clearly explains why challenge participants limiting themselves to $28-$30 a week are being disingenuous:

The amount of benefits the household gets is called an allotment. The net monthly income of the household is multiplied by .3, and the result is subtracted from the maximum allotment for the household size to find the household’s allotment. This is because SNAP households are expected to spend about 30 percent of their resources on food.

As has been the case for the five-plus years I’ve been following the challenge, FRAC and other leftist advocates have deliberately ignored how the food stamp program really works. The following shows how much a household with no other available resources will receive in monthly benefits during the current fiscal year (converted to weekly by yours truly for comparative purposes), and what those levels were six years ago:

Note that Maximum Monthly Allotments have increased by 29% in six years. During that time, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, food costs have risen roughly 20%.

The mayor’s “challenge” obviously should have been how to get by on $46.03 a week. That’s easy, especially for a vegeterian like Booker:

• Seven 15-ounce cans of various generic or store-brand vegetables should cost no more than about 80¢ each, for a total of $6 (rounded). Each can supposedly has 3.5 servings, but since Booker is an ex-football player, I’ll assume that each can will only last him two meals. That’s 14 meals, or enough for a full week of lunches and dinners.
• Seven 15-ounce or 20-ounce cans of generic or store-brand fruits averaging $1.25 each will cost $9 (rounded). That’s also enough for all required lunches and dinners.
• A gallon of milk and a gallon of orange juice come in at a combined $7 or so, enough to provide a 12-ounce serving of one or the other for all 21 weekly meals.

That leaves $24, which is surely enough to provide for all breakfasts and anything else Booker wants to add to his lunches and dinners, including more generous servings of fruits and vegetables. Meat-eaters could spend about $7 for seven cans (14 servings) of heat-and-eat canned pasta and still have $17 left for all breakfasts.

Astute shoppers certainly recognize that my individual cost figures are far higher than one will pay if they shop aggressively. Additionally, I didn’t even look at substituting often cheaper fresh fruits and vegetables or at purchasing in bulk. I daresay that frugal Walmart shoppers could easily feed themselves adequately in most parts of the country on less than $35 a week, and far less than $200 a month.

If FRAC and others have specific problems with how the formulas reducing the Maximum Monthly Allotments work, they should tell us what they are. But they won’t. Instead, they want to make sure that everyone knows which states don’t even have an asset test any more — a loophole which allowed an Ohio couple with $80,000 in the bank and a paid-off house to collect benefits in 2009 — and which ones have stretched the program’s gross income test to up to 200% of the federal poverty level. Loosened program eligibility rules large explain why food stamp program participation continues to grow — up by over 870,000 participants in August and September alone — even as the still too high unemployment rate has been dropping. And of course, advocates fail to account for the fact that millions of households enrolled in the food stamp program have kids who double up on meal coverage by receiving free school breakfasts and lunches.

Cory Booker’s opportunistic Food Stamp Challenge participation was all about positioning himself to seek higher office, either as the Garden State’s next governor or U.S. Senator. It’s not unreasonable to believe that he has eyes on eventually seeking the presidency. The last thing the country needs is yet another unprincipled liberal wolf in moderate sheep’s clothing in the White House.

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.

__________________________________________