I'm going for day two of my "shit worth reading" post round-up of things I read, and found interesting, throughout the day. If you're curious about my reasoning behind it (why certain topics show up here), my post about it should clear that up.
That's right: There are seven stories leading the site about a comment made by a CNN analyst who does not work for the Obama campaign, but who is described here as "adviser to Obama." There is a multiplying effect, because the people who write the news read Drudge. It's possible that the Romney-Drudge alliance is well-enough known to lessen the impact. Also possible: That the incredible intelligence-insulting exercise underway here is too intense to actually work.
And yet, Romneycare is doing pretty well. As you can see in Sarah’s charts, it’s covered about 95 percent of Massachusetts adults. Premiums are growing more slowly than the national average in both the employer and individual markets. And the law is, perhaps most importantly, very popular in Massachusetts.
Well, then, it was settled! Someone who may have advised a campaign months before appearing on TV is still, clearly, coordinating a message with the campaign. My colleague John Dickerson tried to get the surrogates to explain, under the new standard, who was and wasn't officially speaking for a candidate. Suddenly the topic changed.
The difference between the two parties over the last few years has been that Democrats wanted to spend more on job creation and Republicans wanted to move to austerity budgeting. If the Republicans had succeeded, I think the bulk of the evidence suggests that we wouldn’t have seen a different pattern of recovery so much as less recovery.
This might not seem like a huge deal to you. But it is. And it gets to one of my favorite scary statistics: 70 percent of the antibiotics used in this country -- 70 percent! -- go into livestock production. And that's before you even get to the antibiotics that are used on animals who actually fall ill.
The Treasury Department reported Wednesday that it collected $171 billion in taxes and other revenue last month, the highest March tally since 2008, when Bear Stearns was acquired at a government-run fire sale by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Individual income-tax revenue from October through March, the first half of the government's 2012 fiscal year, hit $484.1 billion, up from $475.6 billion in the year-earlier period. Corporate income taxes rose to $84.5 billion from $55.1 billion a year earlier. The higher tax revenue helped shrink the six-month deficit to $778.8 billion this year, $50 billion lower than the year before.
The two parties spent most of this week, as they tend to spend most of every week, arguing about taxes. Democrats are for ‘em. Republicans, against. Right? Wrong. These tiresome debates obscure the near-consensus in Washington on taxes: Republicans don’t want to raise taxes on anyone, and Democrats don’t want to raise taxes on almost anyone. The argument between the two parties rages over that sliver of territory between 'anyone' and 'almost anyone.'...In the long run, this anti-tax orthodoxy is likely to harm both parties. Democrats cannot, in the coming decades, pay for the social welfare state they say they support by raising taxes only on the rich. Yet sharply raising taxes only on the rich -- the most noxious and counterproductive kind of tax increase, according to Republicans -- is all but guaranteed if Republicans continue to oppose any and all attempts at revenue- raising tax reform and force future tax hikes to come entirely through Democratic votes.
Isn’t it strange how when there’s something to legitimately brag about, the bragging is done in a very specific manner? Actual numbers are given. But when there isn’t, numbers become relative. Or exceedingly confusing. Or worse.
It’s coming down to a lot of bedrock issues about how you VALUE things in general. What’s the VALUE in paying more? What should electronic items cost if the physical value is largely held in the device? How do we maintain a thriving literary life in the face of these new developments? Is this a sign that publishing is an outmoded business of “gatekeepers,” or is this a rallying point to stand up and say we’re willing to pay more for things that are of value to us?
But even the case against the publishers is not a sure thing for the Department of Justice. Some experts suggest that even amid claims that the publishers met to discuss a shift to an agency model being championed by Apple, the publishers may not be found guilty of antitrust violations.
Instead of slapping a bunch of ads on people’s tumblogs, which Karp says would make the network profitable almost immediately, the Tumblr team will focus on rolling out more features to help creatives gather attention or create better things, similar to the Highlight feature that the company previously released.
This case is actually pretty fascinating because had Apple not accepted the agency model to gain some traction in e-books, we’d probably be hearing the publishers complaining to the DoJ that Amazon was using their monopoly in e-books to destroy their businesses.