Will Obamacare's Employer Mandate Ever Be Implemented?  I love to see a non-Donk POTUS enforce it retroactively.  THAT'D get the Donks screamig for repeal!

TRANSPARENCY: Judicial Watch Obtains 106-Page HHS Document Revealing Scope of Obamacare Rollout Disaster. 

Sen. Reid?  Call your office: Nevada is Scrapping Its Obamacare Exchange, Joining Healthcare.gov

Hes right.  it won't.  Because it will be GONE!  Obama: 'In Five Years It Will No Longer Be Called Obamacare'

with more to come, I'm pretty sure ...

ELIZABETH PRICE FOLEY: V.A. Scandals Raise The Specter Of Healthcare Rationing.
IF THIS WERE A PRIVATE COMPANY, THE EXECUTIVES WOULD ALREADY BE UNDER INDICTMENT: Seventh VA office finds secret wait list — with over 200 veterans on it. But it’s government healthcare, so there’s no real accountability.

HOPEY-CHANGEY GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE: West Virginia Doctor: Veterans On VA Waiting List Are Committing Suicide.

Chicago VA Spent 3X More On Painters Than Quality Assurance

A mainstream summary of the timeline on the developing Veterans Affairs 

WILLIAM GALSTON: The Veterans’ Administration Scandal Is Only The Start: If the country can’t meet basic needs now, wait until the looming deficit disaster finally strikes.

Krugman on VA Health Care as a Model for Reform

This one's gonna vanish reasonably soon, but here are some interesting takes.

IT’S FROM DEAN BAQUET: WaPo: In one sentence, a heap of New York Times arrogance.

Some Baquet history.

Wondered how long this would take: [Jonathan H. Adler] Bird conservation group to challenge rule allowing wind farms to kill eagles

 Sessions Slams Democrats' Hypocrisy on Minimum Wage Increase

SO THE GENDER PAY GAP’S A MYTH — EXCEPT, I GUESS. AT THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE AND THE NEW YORK TIMES: ‘Pass the popcorn’: Jill Abramson reportedly discovered pay ‘considerably less’ than male predecessor.

Related: ‘Need to follow some new people’: Jill Abramson’s NYT exit fills Twitter feeds with journo buzz.

Lefty TV: Abortion is About ‘My Fundamental Right To Life’

this one's tagged "Science" but it could easily be economics.  FWIW, wife recently threatened to divorce me after an AGW discussion.  Or rather, during it.

from Bob Murphy:

For some time now I’ve been trying to convey just how ludicrous it is that the US government’s anti-carbon policies are based on computer simulations of the global economic/climate system through the year 2300. A recent piece by David Kreutzer and Kevin Dayaratna (an economist and computer programmer, respectively, at the Heritage Foundation) is the best I’ve yet seen:

When you switch on the kitchen light tonight, how will it affect Captain James T. Kirk and the intrepid crew of the Starship Enterprise?

Captain Kirk is a fictional character, of course, but the question — thanks to the EPA — is all too real. The agency calls it the “Social Cost of Carbon.” In the SCC they claim to have an estimate, measured in dollars per ton of CO2, for all the damage that your free-and-easy light-switching today will impose on the world from now until the year 2300, at which point Captain Kirk would be 77. To save Kirk and the rest of future Earth from a panoply of speculative, incremental horrors, the EPA has plans to nudge your carbony little fingers away from that switch and many others.

The two authors then go on to describe their results when they tweak 2 of the 3 computer models that the Obama Administration’s Working Group used to calculate the “social cost of carbon”:

Like the EPA, we ran the DICE model (created by William Nordhaus) and the FUND model (by Richard Tol). But we used more recent peer-reviewed estimates of CO2′s impact on world temperature (here and here), and we ran the models using a 7 percent discount rate (that is, the rate at which we value short-term effects over long-term effects), as stipulated by the OMB and curiously ignored by the EPA, which used 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent.

The simple substitution of the discount rate drops the SCC estimate by more than 80 percent in the DICE model and pushes it to zero or even negative for the FUND model. (Here it might be appropriate to observe a moment of sympathetic silence for Richard Tol, a lead and convening IPCC author, who was recently excoriated by his former brethren for publicly stating the painfully obvious: Some impacts of warming are good.)

Updating the estimates of CO2′s impact on temperatures drops the SCC estimates by 40 to 80 percent. When the 7 percent discount rate is used in conjunction with the updated CO2 impacts, the FUND model indicates a better-than-even chance the SCC is negative.

That is, using more up-to-date numbers renders a range of estimates so broad that it is not clear whether CO2 emissions should be restricted or subsidized. Are these changes debatable? Absolutely. Is the debate on these topics over? Absolutely not. We cannot calculate how today’s trip to the grocery will harm humanity in three centuries. Nevertheless, the EPA is forging ahead with regulations employing a SCC of about $40 per ton for the near term. [Bold added.]

Incidentally, I haven’t personally vetted their computer runs, but their results are consistent with my own simulations run on the DICE model when I tweaked it for a paper in The Independent Review. And as I explained in my Senate testimony last summer, the FUND model does indeed show “positive externalities” of global warming for modest warming, which means that the use of a high enough discount rate would render a prima facie case for subsidizing carbon dioxide emissions.

POLITICS IN OBAMA’S AMERICA: Taxpayer-Supported Latino Caucus Closes Door on Latino, Because He’s a Republican.

Former Ohio Deputy Treasurer Ahmad (D) Arrested at Pakistani Airport

Wisconsin Democrat Brett Hulsey Sews KKK Hood to Give to GOP Legislators

SOUTH CAROLINA COMPTROLLER MAKES STATEMENT IN FAVOR OF INTEGRATED HIGHER EDUCATION, gets attacked by black community.

HIGHER EDUCATION: NOT SUCH AN ECONOMIC EQUALIZER AFTER ALL? “Whether a student graduates or not seems to depend today almost entirely on just one factor — how much money his or her parents make. To put it in blunt terms: Rich kids graduate; poor and working-class kids don’t.” So encouraging poor and working-class kids to go to college may leave them without a degree, but with debt, and thus worse off than if they hadn’t gone at all.

Equaluity of opportunity does not equal equality of outcome.  Nor SHOULD it!

Race Gap Narrows in College Enrollment, But Not in Graduation

It's actually, imho, crueal - what we're doing to manyof these students.

And .... 62%???  Yuck.  But that's what happens we go from 45% of grads going to college to 60%.