5 Thoughts for December 2, 2015

1. PAC-12 Football: Is it just me, or are people way too focused on how Stanford can make it into the playoffs? Just because Stanford beat USC earlier this year does not mean that Stanford can beat USC again. That game against USC was the first time this season that Stanford had taken the training wheels off its offense, while anyone who watched USC play UCLA would know that there were some wholesale changes in the team's approach on both sides of the ball -- this isn't Sark's team.
2. Fed Rate: Remember back in the day when the Feds would raise their rate when inflation was starting to get too hot? These days, we're wondering if the economy is strong enough to raise rates. Need reference to the current rate of inflation? I would point to NAIRU. If inflation isn't accelerating even as job growth continues, why would you want to screw the pooch? Therein lies the problem: The Feds are asking the wrong question.
3. Bipartisanship: As I mentioned the other week, in response to the terrorist attacks in France, holding up the already lengthy and difficult refugee program makes no sense, as this program is the hardest means of sneaking into the US; in fact, what you'd want to do is hold greater scrutiny of the visa waiver program. Sure enough, in a rare show of bipartisanship, both sides are working with the White House to curb the visa waiver program. These things don't need to be politicized, but too frequently they are.
4. Syrian Refugees: Sticking with the topic of terrorism, Conservatives don't want to let Syrian refugees into the US, because of fears of terrorism. I can understand, of course, because here in the US, we have weak gun laws to prevent terrorists from purchasing guns legally, thanks to Conservative Libertarians. No really...people on the No Fly List can buy guns, and just last month the NRA blocked efforts to stop terrorists from buying guns. You see where I'm going with this, don't you? They created their own problem and refuse to take responsibility for it.
5. ACA: In keeping with the theme of a lack of accountability, Senate leaders have assured their colleagues that voting to repeal the ACA, would likely end with a veto by President Obama, thereby relieving them of the effects of millions of people losing healthcare insurance: "Senators were reminded that the president would veto the repeal bill anyway, meaning Republicans could vote on the measure without having to deal with the political risks of actually making major changes to existing law." Sad, right?