Uninsure Them All And Let God Sort It Out

Jonathan Cohn goes through the House GOP budget proposal and finds the Republican plan to replace Obamacare is "repeal it and do nothing", which will take insurance away from tens of millions of Americans:

Worried about the number of Americans who still don’t have health insurance? If House Republican leaders get their way, the number will be much bigger -- maybe even twice as big. 

That may sound ridiculous. But health care analysts tell The Huffington Post that it’s a fair interpretation of the proposed 2016 budget that Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, released on Tuesday. 

Price's document includes two familiar ideas for transforming major government health care programs: repealing the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, and transforming Medicaid into a “block grant” program. It’s difficult to be terribly precise about the impact these changes would have, at least without some kind of formal economic modeling. But it's possible to do a rough calculation using estimates from independent experts and the Congressional Budget Office of previous proposals with similar elements, including the budgets that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) issued when he was in charge of the budget committee. 

Start with the likely impact of Obamacare repeal. The health care law -- beloved by some, hated by others -- makes Medicaid available to all low-income people in participating states, provides discounted private insurance to people buying on their own, and lets young adults stay on their parents’ plans. As a result, the number of people without health insurance today is down to 35 million, according to CBO. Over the next several years, that number is set to drop even further, to about 26 million. Without the law in place, by CBO’s reckoning, the ranks of the uninsured at this point would have been around 50 million -- and that number is projected to remain steady or increase slightly over the next decade. Taking the ACA off the books, as Price and his GOP allies hope to do, would likely boost the number of uninsured back up to that level or close to it.

So 15 million Americans would lose health insurance from repealing Obamacare.  Oh, but it get so much worse when you factor in the rest of the GOP plan to obliterate the nation's poorest.

And Obamacare repeal is only the first way in which Price’s health care agenda would increase the number of uninsured. Turning Medicaid into a block grant, as the House budget seeks to do, would mean ending the program’s current guarantee: that, as more people fall into the program’s eligibility guidelines, the federal government will provide more money. Under a block grant scheme, by contrast, the federal government would start giving states fixed sums of money with which to administer the program. Given the funding levels Price’s budget appears to set, the money almost certainly wouldn’t keep up with demand for the program. 

In reality, these block grants are huge budget cuts by another name. States would find it impossible to maintain the Medicaid rolls at those funding levels, and start removing people from the program as a result. How many? Price’s budget doesn’t provide the same level of detail that Ryan’s early budgets did. But the proposals appear to be very similar. And an estimate of Ryan’s 2012 scheme, put together by researchers from the Urban Institute and published by the Kaiser Family Foundation, suggested that by 2022, turning Medicaid into a block grant would reduce the number of people receiving insurance through the program by between 14.3 million and 20.5 million. 

Again, this would be on top of the people who would lose insurance thanks to repeal of Obamacare. Add the numbers together and, come 2022, something like 60 or 70 million people who would have gotten insurance through either Medicaid or Obamacare would no longer have it. Few of these people would be able find insurance through other means. The result could be close to twice as many uninsured Americans as the estimated 35 million who lack insurance today -- or possibly even more. (And it’d certainly be more than twice as many as the 26 million who, according to the CBO, would remain uninsured in 2022 under the status quo.)

60 or 70 million people without insurance by 2022.  That's one in 4 Americans, or more.  It would come close to breaking our federal health care system completely, and yet Republicans are not only okay with this, but are making this the goal of the budget.

But hey, tens of millions of people who can't afford health coverage aren't a problem for very long, now are they?

This is what will happen if the GOP wins in 2016.  Keep that in mind.

Legal Eagles Flying High

So, what do the geniuses at Townhall.com have for us this week, Zandar?  I'm glad you asked, as we have the legal stylings of one Frank Turek, author, man of faith, and law-arguer person.

The Supreme Court is about to decide if the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage to include same sex relationships. There are several reasons why the answer is no. 

The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

States had miscegenation laws then too.  Are you done ye...oh.

Some may say, “Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality? We’ve evolved since then.” 

That’s addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don’t have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. If the people of the United States have “evolved” on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair way for the document to intelligently “evolve”—they need to convince a supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. That’s the very reason our Constitution has an amendment process!

That's odd.  Is he saying that laws (passed by the legislative), court orders (the judicial) and executive orders (executive branch) are all null and void because they're not in the Constitution?  Because you know what?  Those branches have weighed in numerous times on the text and intent of the Constitution with respect to marriage.  The Supreme Court is about to do it again.  Pay attention. Now go aw...ugh.

If we fail to use the amendment process and permit judges to substitute their own definitions and judgments for what the people actually meant when they passed the law in the first place, then we no longer govern ourselves. Why vote or use the political process if unelected justices strike down our laws and impose their own as they go? In fact, why have a Constitution at all? If it’s “evolving” or “living,” then it’s not really a collective agreement of the people—it’s a pretext that allows judges to invent rights and impose any moral (or immoral) position they want against the will of the people. 

Imagine if the people were to pass an amendment guaranteeing a right to same-sex marriage. Would you consider the Supreme Court to be legitimate if it imposed its own position and overturned the amendment? No, the people decide what the laws are, not the Court.

As to the first, the entire point of the judicial branch and in fact the express purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine if a law is constitutional or not.  As to the second, if the Constitution said that, it would be pretty hard to find it unconstitutional. Please go read an 8th grade civics text and quit bot...argh.

Third, the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn’t even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman? 

Since the people “evolved” on voting rights, they convinced supermajorities in Congress and of the state legislatures voted to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively. The courts knew they shouldn’t act as legislatures to grant rights not addressed by the Constitution. Neither should this Supreme Court.

There's this thing called "legal precedent" that allows the Supreme Court to determine if a law is unconstitutional or not.  In fact, that's exactly what these district courts did, including citing the legal reasoning of sitting Supreme Court justices. Again, express purpose of the courts is to do just that, with the US Supreme Court having the final say.

Please re-read that thing you're waving about and...what is it NOW?!?

Fourth, despite all the talk about equal rights, everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don’t have equal rights. The “born that way” justification doesn’t work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement “marriage,” which means the logic behind it is absurd. The Court needs to acknowledge the fact that natural marriage, same sex-marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage are all different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats those behaviors differently while giving every citizen the equal right to participate in marriage whatever its legal definition is.

Once again, Loving v Virginia. Actually read the decision, man.  Also, see the entire dismantling of "separate but equal".  You're expressly creating a class of people that doesn't have the same rights.  The "slippery slope" to polygamy and bestiality is nonsense because nobody's arguing for that. Now for the love of...SERIOUSLY ARE YOU STILL HERE?

Finally, the states make marriage law, not the feds. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage. While the Supreme Court did overturn Virginia’s ban on inter-racial marriage, it did so because Virginia discriminated on the basis of race, which is precisely what the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent. There is no rational reason to discriminate on the basis of race because race is irrelevant to marriage. However, gender is essential to it. Even the 2013 Windsor decision, which partially struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, recognized that marriage is a state, not a federal issue. Since there is no 14th Amendment issue here, the Court must leave marriage to the states.

Except that the 14th Amendment actually reads the following:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you say that same-sex marriage is illegal, you're violating that part of the Constitution.  It's not hard, man.  That's the clause of the 14th they are talking about and it doesn't even mention race. And even if you ignore the 14th Amendment, there's the argument that the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause also provides such protections.

Now shoo and...I dislike you now.

Legal reasons such as these are all the Court is constitutionally permitted to consider. Polls and policy considerations are for the people or their legislatures, not the courts. Ryan T. Anderson writes in his recent column titled Memo to Supreme Court: Nothing in the Constitution Requires States to Redefine Marriage: “The overarching question before the Supreme Court is not whether an exclusively male–female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the U.S. Constitution. The question is not whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but only whether it is required by the U.S. Constitution.” 

Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution.

There are a number of actual Supreme Court justices and decisions that greatly disagree with you. I'm guessing you're going to meet five of these justices, maybe even six, in June.

StupidiNews!

• President Obama called Israeli PM Netanyahu to congratulate him on winning elections in Israel on Tuesday, but also to voice concerns about commitment to a two-state solution.
• A New York judge will not release documents pertaining to the death of Eric Garner, whose death sparked national protests after being choked to death by police officers on camera.
• Records show that the Clinton Foundation's health program stopped disclosing the names of donors in 2010, an apparent violation of a promise made by Hillary Clinton while Secretary of State.
• The investigation of the death of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov is leading to Chechnya, where the chief suspect is part of an elite police unit loyal to Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov.
• Net neutrality rules have prompted cable pay networks HBO and Showtime to seek deals with broadband companies for exemptions from data caps for streaming video.

Last Call For Paved With Bad Intentions

I wonder what my douchebag of a Congressman, Thomas Massie, is up to.

Just introduced the #DRIVE Act of 2015 - (Developing Roadway Infrastructure for a Vibrant Economy). Info -> http://t.co/GIjEhF8tZ1
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 19, 2015

Wait, die-hard Glibertarian Thomas Massie sponsoring an infrastructure bill?  What's the catch?

Today, Congressman Thomas Massie introduced the DRIVE (Developing Roadway Infrastructure for a Vibrant Economy) Act of 2015 with Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI), Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), and Congressman Ken Buck (R-CO) as original co-sponsors. The DRIVE Act (H.R. 1461) would help keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent and improve our national infrastructure, without raising the gas tax, by refocusing the Highway Trust Fund on its original and proper role of building and maintaining federal highways and bridges. 

OK.  So again, what's the catch?

“Currently, gas tax revenue is diverted from the federal Highway Trust Fund for bike paths, sidewalks, mass transit, and other local projects," said Congressman Massie. "But due to inflation and fuel efficiency improvements of today's vehicles, there is no longer enough money in the Highway Trust Fund to maintain our nation's critical highways and bridges while also funding local projects that have no federal nexus. By eliminating diversion of gas tax revenues, the DRIVE Act ensures that the Highway Trust Fund can fulfill its namesake duty – to fund highways, without an increase in the gas tax rate.”

Oh I get it.  Let's cut to the end.

Annually, over $9 billion of the Highway Trust Fund goes to the Mass Transit Account, which provides funds for local public transportation projects, including subways, light rail, buses, and streetcars. Additional authorizations exist for sidewalks and bike paths to be funded from the Highway Trust Fund. The DRIVE Act repeals these authorizations and reduces Highway Trust Fund obligations by approximately $10 billion annually.

Ding ding ding!  So we're going to fix the Highway Trust Fund by cutting $10 billion a year from mass transit projects, like, say, Cincinnati's streetcar.

Oh well played, Mr. Massie.  Your bill has no chance in hell, but thanks for the heads up on what the GOP "fix" for the Highway Trust Fund is.

New Black City

I know I give the notion of "black respectability politics" (the theory that African-Americans have largely brought the problems of socioeconomic disaster upon themselves by accepting government programs and not simply choosing to be wealthy, productive members of society by reaching out to white America more often) a wide berth, and battle the nonsense surrounding this from both the left and right.

But Wall Street Journal pundit and author Jason Riley really does need his own category of impressively wrong on this, as he breaks down recent events involving race in Oklahoma and Missouri.

We don’t have to use our imagination because we can look at black history, which shows the rate at which blacks were entering the skilled professions during periods when labor-market discrimination was open, rampant and legal. Between 1940 and 1970, the percentage of black white-collar workers in the U.S. quadrupled. “There was a substantial black middle-class already in existence by the end of the 1960s,” write Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom in their book “America in Black and White.” “In the years since, it has continued to grow, but not at a more rapid pace than in the preceding three decades, despite a common impression to the contrary.”

History shows that faster black progress was occurring at a time when whites were still lynching blacks, not merely singing about it. Liberals want blacks to ignore the lessons of this pre-Civil Rights era, which threaten the current relevance of groups like the NAACP and call into question the Democratic Party’s belief that there is a federal solution to every black problem. 

Moreover, this history reveals that what we see today in black America is not lack of progress due to white racism but retrogression due in large part to post-Civil Rights era social pathology and misguided government interventions. The problem isn’t the attitudes and behaviors of the boys on the bus so much as those of the boys in the ’hood. 

Black elites are eager to blame bad black outcomes on bigotry and quick to denounce or mock anyone who offers an alternative explanation. But we should be thankful that black leaders of yore didn’t pretend that racism must be vanquished from America before blacks could be held primarily responsible for their socioeconomic circumstances. “We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too,” Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in St. Louis. “We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.” 

I mentioned that King quote, which comes from a 1961 profile of him in Harper’s Magazine, in a column for this newspaper several years ago. Some readers accused me of fabricating it. In the era of Al Sharpton, apparently it is hard for people to believe that leading civil-rights leaders used to speak so frankly about black self-help and personal responsibility. Which may be all you need to know about the quality of those black leaders today—and the commentators who carry water for them.

Yes, that's his argument: because in the struggles of Jim Crow-era America, black people were more involved in trying to better themselves, we were better off then.  In fact, the Civil Rights era was a huge mistake because it made us soft and reliant on the government.

We were better off fighting for rights than securing legislation to actually have those rights.  That seems odd until you recall that Riley's overarching theme is that any government action to try to resolve racism is always detrimental.

And Riley's argument about the black middle class would have actually meant something if that didn't include a faltering middle class since 1970 for all Americans, not just African-Americans.  Real wages for all workers -- men, women, black, Asian, Latino and everyone else -- have been stagnant in this country since (you guessed it) 1970 or so and for the poorest Americans they have gotten worse.

From WWII to 1972 or so, the time period Riley highlights, black workers were still well behind their white counterparts in wages earned.  When the 70's and 80's came around it was the people on the bottom that got burned, and that happened again in the Great Recession in 2008.

Riley's theory only makes sense if you're somehow blaming the Civil Rights era for the decline of the entire economy for all Americans.

Which he is.  Nice how that works, eh?

Not Fitting The Narrative

Apparently the whole CLINTON E-MAIL SCANDAL isn't something that the "liberal media" has been screaming about enough, because the latest CNN poll finds Hillary Clinton handily beating all GOP challengers by double digits in a 2016 matchup.

Hillary Clinton continues to be a dominant force heading into the 2016 presidential election, according to a new CNN/ORC poll. The former secretary of state maintains a broad lead over the field of potential Democratic challengers she could face in a nomination contest and sizable advantages over the leading contenders from the Republican side in general election match-ups. 

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush tops the possible field for the Republican Party's nomination race, followed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson all in a tight cluster. 

But none of the top candidates in this field gets within 10 points of Hillary Clinton in a series of hypothetical general election matchups. 

Rand Paul comes closest, with 43% saying they'd be more likely to back him while 54% choose Clinton. 

The two candidates who currently top the GOP field, Bush and Walker, match up equally against Clinton, with each carrying 40% to her 55%. Huckabee gets 41% to Clinton's 55% and Carson has 40% to Clinton's 56%.

Checking out the complete poll info,  Clinton is the only candidate with above 50% favorability rating (53% to 44%) while Jeb Bush is underwater by 16 points (31-47%) and Chris Christie is the least liked candidate in either party at minus 19 (25-44%).

I'm not super thrilled about a Hillary Clinton presidency, but I promise I'd vote for her in a heartbeat against any of these GOP clowns.  Seems many Americans agree with me.

StupidiNews!

• Tunisian PM Habib Essid says the country's military has identified two of the five suspects in yesterday's deadly raid on tourists at a museum in the capital of Tunis, killing 19.
• The "Angry Birds" brand may have finally flown the coop as mobile gaming giant Roxio reported a 73% drop in profits in 2014 due to sluggish sales of the franchise.
• The Obama administration is considering delaying pulling out from Afghanistan due to Islamic State activity and US bases at Kandahar and Jalalabad may remain open through 2015 rather than closing.
• Greek PM Alexis Tsipras is heading to an EU summit in Brussels with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other EU leaders to try again to resolve the Greek bailout crisis.
• Congressional Republicans continue to attack the FCC's open internet rules, with Oregon GOP Rep. Greg Walden proposing legislation that would cut the FCC's budget in response.

Last Call For Jeb's Waging War On The Poor

The media likes to portray Jeb Bush as a "moderate" Republican, but moderate Republicans can't win primaries.  Which is why Dubya The Revenge is going around South Carolina saying that America needs to get rid of the federal minimum wage. 

At an event in South Carolina on Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush was asked whether he thinks the country should raise the minimum wage or whether the wage should be left up to private companies. 

“We need to leave it to the private sector,” he responded. “I think state minimum wages are fine. The federal government shouldn’t be doing this.” He went on, “The federal government doing this will make it harder and harder for the first rung of the ladder to be reached, particularly for young people, particularly for people that have less education.”

But remember, Jebby is not like those Tea Party nutjobs. Not at all. He thinks there are people making minimum wage who are being paid too much money right now.   And remember, without a federal minimum wage, there are several states where people would be making less than $7.25 an hour: Alabama (no minimum), Georgia ($5.15 if there are more than six employees, none if fewer), Louisiana (no minimum), Tennessee (no minimum), Wyoming ($5.15)...

...and South Carolina, which has no minimum wage either.

Let that sink in for a minute.  Jeb Bush calling for the end of a federal minimum wage in a state with no minimum wage.  I don't think that's an accident, do you?

Magical Laffer Curve Fairies, And Other Economic Theories

House Republicans are gearing up for another round of massive austerity cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and eliminating Obamacare for 16 million plus people with their budget proposal.

Republicans say their plan would balance the federal budget and create a surplus by 2024. By contrast, they say, Obama’s proposed budget would generate more than $700 billion in annual deficits by that year. The GOP budget would save over $5 trillion over the next 10 years. 

Sure it will.  And I'm Genghis Khan.

The GOP plan would replace Medicaid expansion through State Flexibility Funds, which would put Medicaid coverage plans in the hands of state governments. It would leave in place some alternatives to traditional Medicaid expansion plans proposed by Republican governors in states like Indiana, where Gov. Mike Pence (R) won federal support for a program that is similar, but not identical, to expansion envisioned under the ACA. 

The budget repeals several parts of the Dodd-Frank legislation, including an end to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s authority to bail out creditors of institutions deemed too big to fail. It would require Congress to appropriate funding for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which currently generates its revenue from the Federal Reserve. And it would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the semi-public lending institutions. 

The budget also curtails some programs implemented through the 2009 stimulus bill, which spent about $800 billion trying to drag the United States out of an economic recession. The bill proposes limiting Energy Department programs that have invested in emerging technologies by requiring the department leave application and commercialization of those technologies to the private sector. It also rescinds money that hasn’t yet been spent on green energy programs. 

Republicans said their bill would simplify the tax code through comprehensive reform, repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax and lowering rates for both individuals and corporations. It would create a reserve fund to spur a new surface transportation bill that would keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent.

And on top of all those huge tax cuts for corporations and the rich?  $400 billion in additional Pentagon spending over ten years.  Yet somehow all this will balance the budget in ten years.
How does that work?  Magic, apparently.  But there's that mythical "patient-centered" replacement for Obamacare that Republicans have been promising since 2010, but still can't put into legislation.

If you thought previous shutdown fights were fun, this one will be a doozy.

The Real Racists Are Always Everyone But You

Despite the scathing Justice Department detailing the massive corruption and racism in Ferguson, Missouri's Police Department and municipal courts, Missouri GOP Lt.Gov. Peter Kinder knows who the real racists are: Eric Holder and President Obama.

“The whole blow up of this protest movement was based on the lie that never happened of ‘hands up don’t shoot,’” Peter Kinder, the Lt. governor told NewsMaxTV’s Steve Malzberg Show Monday. “But it’s bad enough the protestors were behaving that way but we have a right to expect more from the attorney general, the head of the Justice Department of the United States, and the president of the United States. And instead what we got too often from them was incitement of the mob, and, uh, encouraging disorder in Ferguson and distributing the peaceable going-about of our lives in the greater St. Louis region.”

Kinder added President Obama and Eric Holder “took one side” following the death of Michael Brown. Asked why, he said the Justice Department was “staffed with radical, hard-left radical, leftists lawyers.”

He called the Justice Department under Holder, “not like any Justice Department in American history” and “Eric Holder is unlike any previous attorney general.”

“Many of them have spent most of their careers defending Black Panthers and other violent radicals,” he added. ”

Kinder said “where reforms are needed they’re being made,” citing resignations of police officers and the Ferguson city manger.

Responding to a question he said, “there is more racism in the Justice Department than there is any, uh, yes, anywhere that I see in the St. Louis area.”

Because the black President and that black Attorney General have to know their goddamn place, you see.

Because racism didn't exist before January 20, 2009.  Neither did police brutality.

Because why can't you people just get over this whole being black thing, anyway? It's been 400 years already.

Because you know you're always starting trouble with the good white people of Missouri.

Because you people are always shooting cops, you savages.

Because you don't work hard and you make yourselves poor.

Because if you really wanted out of poverty, you'd get yourself out.

Because anyone who points out racism is the reeeeeeeeal racist.

Because I'm goddamn tired of the "because".

StupidiNews!

• Benjamin Netanyahu will remain Prime Minister after his Likud party took 29 seats in Israel's 120-seat parliament in yesterday's elections and is expected to form a far-right coalition.
• The US Secret Service says an envelope mailed to the White House tested "presumptive positive" for cyanide, no injuries reported so far.
• The US Presbyterian Church has come closer to approving same-sex marriage in the church's constitution, a move that could split the denomination.
• Protests of the European Central Bank's new headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany turned violent as cars were set on fire and protesters clashed with German police.
• Health care provider Premera Blue Cross says a cyber attack last May could have exposed the info of 11 million customers.

Last Call For Gentlemen's Club

Beginning to think that maybe fraternities in general aren't such an awesome idea.

A fraternity at Penn State University has been suspended as police investigate allegations that members used a secret Facebook page to post photos of nude women, some of whom appeared to be sleeping or passed out. 

According to a copy of a State College police warrant obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, a former member of the Kappa Delta Rho fraternity came to authorities and told them about the page. The former member also turned over printouts from the page on a computer thumb drive. 

Police say some Facebook posts also related to hazing and drug deals. 

Police say the investigation is ongoing to determine who made the posts. 

The fraternity was suspended by Penn State's intrafraternity governing body and the national chapter.

Can't imagine why colleges and universities have a massive sexual assault problem.

The St. Patrick's Day Mass-Schock-er

And Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Downton Abbey) is resigning from the House.

The 33-year-old Republican has been dogged by questions about his spending of taxpayer and campaign dollars. On Monday afternoon, POLITICO posed a lengthy set of questions about charging the government and his campaign tens of thousands of dollars in questionable mileage reimbursements. 

“Today, I am announcing my resignation as a Member of the United States House of Representatives effective March 31,” Schock said in a statement. “I do this with a heavy heart. Serving the people of the 18th District is the highest and greatest honor I have had in my life. I thank them for their faith in electing me and letting me represent their interests in Washington. I have given them my all over the last six years. I have traveled to all corners of the District to meet with the people I’ve been fortunate to be able to call my friends and neighbors.” 

“But the constant questions over the last six weeks have proven a great distraction that has made it too difficultfor me to serve the people of the 18th District with the high standards that they deserve and which I have set for myself. I have always sought to do what’s best for my constituents and I thank them for the opportunity to serve,” he said in a statement.

Somehow I don't think Republicans will have too much trouble finding a replacement for him, Peoria's district voted 61% for Romney in 2012, and Schock himself got nearly 75% of the vote in 2014.

But still, the guy was clearly crooked and he's out of Congress at the end of the month.

Tanks For The Memories

West Virginia passed legislation regulating safety of all  the state's chemical storage tanks in the wake of last year's chemical spill that contaminated tap water for more than 300,000 people.  Over the weekend however, Republicans rewrote the legislation to cover only a quarter of the state's tanks, in a major victory for chemical and energy companies.

The bill had the backing of several industry groups, including the West Virginia Manufacturers Association, based in Charleston. “This new legislation really narrows the focus of the regulations on the tanks that are by definition the ones that would present the most danger to drinking water supplies,” said Rebecca Randolph, president of the group. 

Environmental groups fought the measure. “It reduces the regulation of tens of thousands of above-ground storage tanks, some of which have the potential to contaminate drinking water,” said Evan Hansen, president of Downstream Strategies, an environmental consulting company based in Morgantown, W.Va. 

Mr. Hansen said opponents of the bill had presented alternatives that were all rejected. “There were compromises that were possible that would have provided regulatory relief for thousands of tanks while still protecting the integrity of the act,” he said. 

Until the passage of last year’s law, one of the strictest in the nation, environmental officials didn’t know how many above-ground storage tanks were in the state. 

Under the new measure, stricter rules regarding inspections and maintenance are required for about 5,000 tanks. Those contain at least 50,000 gallons, store certain hazardous substances or are within a “zone of critical concern,” defined as falling within five hours travel time along a river to a drinking water system intake. 

Another 7,000 tanks that are within 10 hours travel time of a water intake would also be covered but with less stringent requirements. Other changes include scaling back what were annual state inspections of tanks in the zone of critical concern to once every three years.

The rest of the state's other 38,000 plus tanks?  Well, who knows and who cares.  The free market will see to those.  And should another major chemical leak happen in those bigger tanks between three-year inspections, well, residents have been through it before, they'll know what to do.  We can't have businesses spending money of ludicrous things like "keeping public drinking water safe."

StupidiNews!

• As joint US/NATO military exercises continue in Europe, Russia is putting its Northern Fleet on "full alert" in readiness exercises in the Arctic Circle.
• New Labor Department figures show that the gender pay gap is narrowing slowly, but may not close at this rate until the year 2058.
• Israeli voters head to the polls today to select a government in elections that could see PM Benjamin Netanyahu defeated by a coalition of center-left opposition parties.
• Greece's government is scrambling, facing $2 billion plus in debt payments on Friday that it must meet or default on its loans.
• The Dutch non-profit firm selecting colonists to go to Mars is under accusations that the entire process is a scam.