Russia bans wheat exports

Think that weather changes don't have consequences?

Russia banned all exports of grain on Thursday after millions of acres of wheat withered in a severe drought, a portentous decision at a time when crop failures caused by heat and flooding span the northern hemisphere.

...The decision caused an immediate and sharp rise in the already high global price of wheat. It rose more than 8 percent in early trading on the Chicago Board of Trade on Thursday, after having increased about 90 percent since June because of the drought in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and parts of the European Union, and floods in Canada.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarizes the dire situation in Russia.

High temperatures and sparse rainfall dominated the climate of the world's largest country during June and July. With temperatures hovering 8–12°F (4–8°C) above average across a large swath of Russia, daily record high temperatures of 91°F (33°C) and 95°F (35°C) were recorded in Moscow on July 16th and 17th, breaking records that dated back to 1951 and 1938, respectively. On July 26th, the city recorded its highest temperature ever—98.9°F (37.2°C)—breaking the previous record of 98.2°F (36.8°C) set 90 years ago. The hot weather has had deadly consequences. More than 1,200 drowning deaths were reported as people tried to escape the heat across Russia. The worst drought conditions since 1972 destroyed 22 million acres (nine million hectares), an estimated 20 percent of the nation's crops, including grain, vegetable, and fodder. Additionally, a state of emergency was declared as 948 forest fires covering 64,000 acres (26,000 hectares) were burning in 18 provinces. Twenty-six forest fires and 34 peat fires were burning in the Moscow region on the 26th, leading to dangerous air pollution levels. Mosekomonitoring, the Moscow governement agency in charge of monitoring air pollution, said that smog levels were five to eight times greater than normal. According to Rianovosti, Russian meteorologists stated that the summer of 2010 was the hottest on record for the country.

A single season or year of bad weather does not equate to climate change. However, a warming climate would contribute to more heat waves and to localized droughts.

Critics of climate change policies are quick to point out the costs of those policies. The situation in Russia reminds us that unabated climate change has costs as well.

Senators Coburn & McCain are suddenly computer scientists

Senators Coburn and McCain have criticized our sister institution, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC) for being awarded a research grant from the National Science Foundation's Computer & Information Science and Engineering directorate.

The research grant was awarded to a faculty member in UNCC's Software and Information Systems Department to study how to digitize information on human movement, support visualization of those data, and facilitate interactive communication. Coburn and McCain sneer at the project because the movement being studied comes from dancers and the interactions involve choreographers and potential audience members.

Coburn and McCain don't tell you that the project was competitively awarded after undergoing extensive scientific peer-review that involved computer scientists and NSF scientific panels.

Coburn and McCain also criticize the administrative costs of the project, writing "administrative expenses are unusually high for this project... The project’s lead researcher noted that the university is taking a 44 percent cut to cover 'overhead expenses.'"

However, the Senators have mistated the administrative costs. UNCC charges an overhead (facilities and administrative) rate of 44 percent against the applicable direct costs of on campus research projects. If all of the direct costs were applicable (they aren't), UNCC's administrative "cut" would be just under 31 percent of the total costs. Also, NSF grants often involve contributions of resources from the applicant institution (institutional cost-sharing), making the effective cut smaller still.

Also, the 44 percent cost rate, which is set through an agreement between UNCC and the U.S. government, is hardly "unusual." For example, the comparable overhead rates for on-campus research at the University of Oklahoma at Norman and the University of Arizona are each higher at 50 percent and 51.5 percent, respectively. I couldn't find similar criticism from the senators of their home-state institutions' indirect rates.

Coburn and McCain can't get many of the basic facts of this project correct, yet they would have us substitute their judgement for the expert assessments of NSFs scientific staff and reviewers.

Perhaps the senators could tell us how much taxpayer-funded staff time they allocated to digging this stuff up.

One day like this

Happy Birthday Cathy! There really is only one day like this. Please remind me, though, why do you want me to cut my hair shorter and put on biker shorts?

Secesh breeds secesh

BTW, Texas Gov. Perry and Tenn. Rep. Wamp aren't the only Republican secessionists.

Other examples:

• Republicans in Minnesota passed a secessionist resolution at a district nominating convention.


• Polls taken last year showed that sizeable fractions of Republicans in Georgia and Texas favored secession for their states.


• Rep. Ron Paul, "Secession is very much of an American principle... Secession is a good principle... We need to reconsider this."

If at first you don't secede

Yet another Republican "patriot" is raising the spectre of secession if the reactionary minority doesn't get its way.

Rep. Zach Wamp (R-03) suggested TN and other states may have to consider seceding from the union if the federal government does not change its ways regarding mandates.

"I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government," said Wamp during an interview with Hotline OnCall.

He lauded Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), who first floated the idea of secession in April '09, for leading the push-back against health care reform, adding that he hopes the American people "will send people to Washington that will, in 2010 and 2012, strictly adhere" to the constitution's defined role for the federal government.

"Patriots like Rick Perry have talked about these issues because the federal government is putting us in an untenable position at the state level," said Wamp...

Perhaps Rep. Wamp has forgotten the oath that he swore before the Almighty promising to bear allegiance to the United States (italics added):

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Apparently, allegiance is a sometime thing.

As is Rep. Wamp's concern regarding unfunded mandates on the states. Rep. Wamp was singing a different tune when he voted for (and still boasts about) the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 which imposed numerous requirements on state systems of higher education and threatened states with a loss of federal education funding if they cut their own financing of higher education (see section 116, pp. 36-37).

Efficiency

Economists emphasize efficiency -- these guys show how four chords go a long, long way.

Sweet tea for toddlers?

Rep. Maggie Jeffus has come in for some criticism over at Joe Guarino's blog. Joe criticizes her for H1726, a bill that would require modest standards for the types of foods that licensed day care centers could provide children and that would lead to the development of physical activity standards for day care centers.

Among the specific requirements, the bill would require the NC Child Care Commission to

...adopt rules for child care facilities to ensure that all children receive nutritious food and beverages according to their developmental needs. The Commission shall consult with the Division of Child Development of the Department of Health and Human Services to develop nutrition standards to provide for requirements appropriate for children of different ages. In developing nutrition standards, the Commission shall consider the following recommendations:

1. Limiting or prohibiting the serving of sweetened beverages, other than 100% fruit juice, to children of any age.
2. Limiting or prohibiting the serving of whole milk to children two years of age or older or flavored milk to children of any age.
3. Limiting or prohibiting the serving of more than six ounces of juice per day to children of any age.
4. Limiting or prohibiting the serving of juice from a bottle.
5. Creating an exception from the rules for parents of children who have medical needs, special diets, or food allergies.

Joe criticizes the bill as "ridiculous."

The language in the bill closely follows a recommendation that was made by the the "ridiculous" NC General Assembly Task Force on Childhood Obesity. The Task Force, in turn, relied on "ridiculous" model regulations that were proposed by researchers at UNC and other experts.

The Task Force was responding to high and growing rates of obesity in North Carolina. Indeed, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has just released a study that shows that North Carolina ranks 10th in rates of adult obesity and 11th in rates of childhood obesity. However, these figures must also be "ridiculous."

There is also evidence that North Carolina day care centers do a poor job of feeding their charges. A research team from UNC examined the foods and beverages that preschoolers in NC day care centers were served and consumed (Ball et al., J. Am. Dietetic Assoc., 2008). The team found that, on average, preschoolers consumed less than 13% of the recommended amounts of whole grain foods and around 7% of the recommended amounts of dark vegetables. Preschoolers did get adequate amounts of milk, but most of that milk was whole milk--only 11% was low- or non-fat.

They concluded

Our data suggest that children are not consuming recommended amounts of whole grains, fruits, or vegetables while attending full-time child care. Instead, children are consuming excessive amounts of added sugars from sweet snacks and condiments, and saturated fat from whole milk and high-fat or fried meats.

It would be nice if we could rely on market pressures to contribute to better nutrition standards at day care centers. The laissez faire argument goes something as follows:

• parents know what's best for their children and will value care providers who meet their children's nutritional needs;
• day care providers, in turn, will be forced to compete for the hard-earned dollars of those parents; the day care centers will have to provide good meals or risk going out of business.

However, the trends in obesity and the evidence that child care centers do a poor job of feeding children undercut this argument.

While parents may know what's best for their children in a general sense, they may not know everything that goes on in a day care center. There is asymmetric information in the sense that day care centers know more about the quality of care provided than the parents. Day care centers are especially problematic because their clients--infants, toddlers, and preschoolers--have limited or no ability to report what happens to them.

A related problem is that the consequences of poor nutritional practices are not immediately apparent. A single serving of soda or whole milk typically doesn't lead to noticeable, immediate problems (unless the child is diabetic or lactose intolerant). People have considerable trouble appropriately accounting for consequences that are uncertain or that occur far off in the future.

Even if parents and care providers take these direct consequences into account, they are unlikely to take other externality effects into account, such as the amounts that society is likely to contribute to mitigating health problems or that obesity may have on society.

The costs of complying with this legislation are minimal. Sugar-free drinks, including water, can be substituted for sugary drinks. Low-fat milk can be substituted for whole milk. There's virtually no cost difference.

At the same time, there's scope for some real benefits from reduced obesity and its co-morbidities.

Rep. Jeffus and the 66 other representatives who supported this legislation (including 5 Republicans) are offering a modest, common-sense, and well-considered approach to improve children's nutrition and reduce obesity.

Clint Webb for Senate

A fantastic campaign ad satire.

Rep. Kanjorski's offensive statement

Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) recently spoke in favor of a program that would help for "average, good American people" who were facing foreclosures and the loss of their homes--a fine sentiment.

However, he defined those "average, good American people" as those who were "not minorities" and "not defective." His quote in full,

We're giving relief to people that I deal with in my office every day now unfortunately. But because of the longevity of this recession, these are people -- and they're not minorities and they're not defective and they're not all the things you'd like to insinuate that these programs are about -- these are average, good American people."

The implications, of course are that minorities and "defective(s)" are somehow distinct from "good American(s)" and that these groups are less deserving of assistance with their housing hardships. The implications may have been unintended, but even so, it's not clear what positive implications might have possibly been intended.

Rep. Kanjorski should apologize for his offensive statement. So far, he's refusing.

NC Lege wants to incentivize big-business tax cheats

The NC legislature is considering a change in the state's tax system that is projected to cost the state $100 million in business tax payments that are legitimately owed.

The state Senate and the business lobby want to take away a big stick that the state's tax collector says it needs to punish big businesses that dodge their taxes.

The issue is up for debate in budget negotiations under way between the state House and Senate. The Senate's version includes a provision that would prevent the N.C. Department of Revenue from assessing a penalty on businesses it thinks are hiding income. The provision is not included in the House's version.

N.C. Department of Revenue Secretary Ken Lay, who is under pressure to maximize the state's collections in the aftermath of a deep recession, says he needs the ability to assess penalties to force companies to be honest. Without the penalties, the revenue department thinks it would miss $100 million in taxes it would otherwise collect. The state faces an $800 million revenue shortfall.

The current policy penalizes substantial under-reporting of business income--it only applies to businesses that under-report their income by 25 percent or more. The policy provides an incentive, albeit an incomplete one, for multi-state businesses to report their NC income. If a company is found to under-report, it must pay the tax that is legitimately owed and a penalty.

The new policy would remove that penalty. In so doing, multi-state companies would have strong incentives to hide their NC income in sham out-of-state operations. If the NC tax authorities fail to detect these maneuvers, the companies escape their tax obligations. If the authorities do uncover the shenanigans, the companies would only be on the hook for the amount that was originally owed plus interest.

The results are easily predicted. More companies will attempt to hide income, and enforcement will become both more costly and less effective. Tax cheats get a tremendous break, leaving the rest of us to either pay more or make due with fewer state services.

The NewsObserver article states that

Supporters of the idea say the revenue department is overstepping its authority and unfairly punishing business. The penalties punish a well-intentioned company that had no way of knowing the department would disagree with its tax return years later, they say.

Howzat?

The revenue department is hardly "overstepping its authority" by investigating tax returns and following state policies in assessing penalties.

It also seems unlikely that "a well-intentioned company" would be punished, as the current penalty doesn't apply unless there is substantial under-reporting.

As for not knowing, the companies have the same responsibility that the rest of us do to follow the law and compute their taxes correctly.

North Carolina faces enough problems with its antiquated tax system and with anticipated budget shortfalls over the next few years. The legislature shouldn't compound that problems by encouraging multi-state businesses to hide their incomes.

Vast mineral wealth in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan, in part because of 30-odd years of war and political instability, is one of the world's poorest and least-developed countries. All of that could change, however, with the discovery of vast, untapped, and previously unknown mineral wealth.

The New York Times reports

The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.

The minerals represent a tremendous development opportunity for the Afghan people and a route out of poverty.

In 2009, total GDP in Afghanistan was estimated to be $23 billion, or $800 per person. Only 8 countries had lower levels of per capita GDP. And it's important to remember that the $23 billion figure is inflated by large inflows of development assistance. Afghanistan's own economic performance is much worse.

One trillion in potential resources represents an off-the-charts jump in wealth. Tapping just one percent of the deposits per year would raise the country's pre-transfer income by more than 50 percent. Building the mines and infrastructure necessary to extract and export would further add to the economy.

The changes for Afghanistan could be profound. As Benjamin Friedman has argued in The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, sustained economic development tends bring positive social changes, including more social cohesion, more personal freedom, and more openness. If handled properly, the wealth could form the glue that finally brings this shattered country back together. The wealth could also set the stage for more sustained development.

However, that's a big "if." Exploitation of mineral wealth is hardly a surefire development strategy, especially in a country that is as weak, divided, corrupt, and poorly governed as Afghanistan. One need only consider the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has vastly more mineral wealth but also fought a civil war and remains even poorer than Afghanistan, to see the risks. Iraq, too, has tremendous oil wealth, but that wealth has served as much as a touchpoint of conflict as a catalyst for progress. Both the benefits and costs from the extraction of natural resources tend to be divided unequally, which also is destabilizing.

Nevertheless, an opportunity has appeared that wasn't known before. With any luck, this opportunity will bring good things to Afghanistan.

'Irresponsible' and 'misguided' are an apt descriptions

In an April 23 speech, President Obama described Arizona's new immigration law as both "irresponsible" and "misguided."

...our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.

In fact, I’ve instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country

Remarks yesterday by city law enforcement officials describe how the new law is counter-productive, leading to more crime and less safety.

Arizona's new crackdown on illegal immigration will increase crime in U.S. cities, not reduce it, by driving a wedge between police and immigrant communities, police chiefs from several of the state's and the nation's largest cities said Tuesday.

The new Arizona law will intimidate crime victims and witnesses who are illegal immigrants and divert police from investigating more serious crimes, chiefs from Los Angeles, Houston and Philadelphia said.

..."This is not a law that increases public safety. This is a bill that makes it much harder for us to do our jobs," Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said. "Crime will go up if this becomes law in Arizona or in any other state."

Rand Paul: Sh*t happens

The new face of the Teapublican Party, Rand Paul, appeared on Good Morning America this morning. In the first part of the interview, Paul deflects questions about his comments and writing on the federal government overreaching with civil rights and other legislation. In particular, Paul wrote

Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate... A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination – even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin.

Paul then went on to criticize President Obama for being too harsh on poor, misunderstood British Petroleum.

Just after the 6-minute mark, Paul says "What I don't like from the President's administration is this sort of ... 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."



So, Paul thinks that it is "really un-American" to criticize a foreign company that has caused one of the worst ecological disasters in U.S. history.

He goes on to describe this as part of the "blame game society." He says that we should instead consider "the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen." He offers a recent mining tragedy as another example of "it's always someone's fault."

Paul's message is simple and clear. It doesn't matter what a business does--discriminates, wrecks the environment, maims or kills its employees. There's no scope for government regulation (not that Paul would overturn or repeal anything, wink wink), and actually no reason for blame. Government needs to get its "boot heel" off the throat of business, and the rest of us need to accept that shit happens.

Employment situation in North Carolina improving

The Department of Labor released its state-level estimates of employment and unemployment, and the report indicates an improving job market in North Carolina.

The estimated unemployment rate, on a seasonally-adjusted basis, dropped in April to 10.8 percent, down from 11.1 percent in March and 11.2 percent in February. At the same time, the estimated number of jobs in the state increased by about 7,500 in April, with the biggest gains coming in professional and business service establishments.

While the improvement is good news, North Carolina's unemployment rate remains substantially above the national average.

National Research Council recommends action on climate change

The National Research Council yesterday released three reports on the evidence regarding climate change, the need for the United States to reduce its greenhouse emissions, and the need to manage and prepare for the impacts of climate change.

A summary of the first report on the evidence on climate change states

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.

The report calls for increased research to improve our understanding of these links and of the efficacy of possible responses.

The second report recommends

a U.S. policy goal stated in terms of a budget for cumulative greenhouse gas emissions over the period 2012‑2050. With only so much to “spend” during this period, the nation should act now to: (1) take advantage of key near-term opportunities to limit greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., through energy efficiency and low carbon energy sources), and to create new and better emission reduction opportunities for the longer term (e.g., invest in research and development); (2) create a national policy framework within which actors at all levels can work toward a common goal; and (3) develop policy mechanisms durable enough to persist for decades but flexible enough to adapt to new information and understanding.

The third report recognizes that the U.S. will need to cope with some aspects of climate change.

Much of the nation’s experience to date in managing and protecting its people, resources, and infrastructure is based on the historic record of climate variability during a period of relatively stable climate. Adaptation to climate change calls for a new paradigm—one that considers a range of possible future climate conditions and associated impacts, some well outside the realm of past experience.

These findings by a non-partisan panel of the nation's leading scientists underscore the urgency of the Senate taking up the bipartisan energy legislation that was co-authored by Senators Graham, Kerry and Lieberman.

With every day that we delay, the problems grow worse, and the solutions become harder.

Tax rate of 9.2 percent? Not really

Ed Cone and Allen Johnson have posted about a USA Today story about historically low tax burdens.

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

Some political conservatives such as "Tea Party" activists have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the past half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

The USA Today analysis is interesting but misses a lot of tax payments and other payments to the government.

USA Today obtains its tax percentage by dividing "personal current taxes" paid to different levels of government ($1.1025 trillion in 2009) by "personal income" ($12.0261 trillion in 2009). The calculation, however, misses much (most actually) of what governments takes in.

In 2009, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (the source for the USA Today analysis) estimated that governments took in $3.745 trillion. Of this, $2.4282 trillion came from tax receipts, $0.972 trillion came from social insurance payments, and the rest was either direct revenue for services or returns on government assets.

Government tax receipts included the $1.1025 trillion in personal taxes but also $0.2895 trillion for corporate income taxes, $1.0234 trillion directly assessed on production or imports, and a small amount from foreigners. So, right away, USA Today is missing about $1.3 trillion in taxes that are paid by businesses.

The social insurance payments also are effectively taxes, so you can add another $0.972 trillion to the tax bite. Altogether, USA Today is missing more than two-thirds of what Americans pay in taxes and mandatory contributions.

When you look at total tax payments as a share of the economy (i.e., ignore mandatory contributions), the USA Today conclusion that we are taxed less than in 1950 still holds. The share of national income going to personal taxes is lower, the share going to production and import taxes is about the same, and the share going to corporate income taxes is down sharply.

However, when you include mandatory contributions to social insurance, the tax burden is several percentage points higher in 2009 than in 1950.

Taxes and mandatory contributions as a proportion of the economy are down substantially from their levels in 2008, which raises the question, why weren't the Tea Partiers complaining about taxes then? It wouldn't have anything to do with the change to a Democratic administration, would it?

And of course, the area where payments to the government have held steady go to government programs--Social Security and Medicare--that Tea Partiers hold as sancrosanct.

Original intent

The Republican Party and its chairman, Michael Steele have weighed in on the nomination of Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. The GOP and Mr. Steele have decided to make Ms. Kagan's support of Justice Thurgood Marshall an issue. From Mr. Steele's release.

Given Kagan’s ... support for statements suggesting that the Constitution "as originally drafted and conceived, was 'defective,'" you can expect Senate Republicans to respectfully raise serious and tough questions to ensure the American people can thoroughly and thoughtfully examine Kagan’s qualifications and legal philosophy before she is confirmed to a lifetime appointment.

The quote comes from the end of an article, "For Justice Marshall," that Ms. Kagan wrote in the Texas Law Review in 1993 and in which she was quoting Justice Marshall. The quote in full (p. 1130) is

During the year that marked the bicentennial of the Constitution, Justice Marshall gave a characteristically candid speech. He declared that the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was "defective"; only over the course of 200 years had the nation "attain[ed] the system of constitutional government, and its respect for ... individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today." The Constitution today, the Justice continued, contains a great deal to be proud of. "[B]ut the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of 'liberty,' 'justice,' and 'equality,' and who strived to better them. The credit, in other words, belongs to people like Justice Marshall. As the many thousands who waited on the Supreme Court steps well knew, our modern Constitution is his.

Let's put aside for the moment whether quoting Justice Marshall indicates unqualified support for every word he said (indeed, Mr. Steele can't even bring himself to say that, writing instead that her words were "suggesting" support).

The comments by the GOP and Mr. Steele raise some "serious and tough questions" of their own.

Wasn't a Constitution that included slavery, that treated each black as three-fifths of a human, and that ultimately led to a civil war "defective?" My gosh, no less a historian than Va. Gov. Bob McDowell has written "The abomination of slavery divided our nation, deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights, and led to the Civil War." Are the GOP and Mr. Steele seriously arguing that we should go back to framers' document?

Weren't interpretations of the Constitution that allowed segregated schools, at least until 1954 when Thurgood Marshall brilliantly argued otherwise in Brown v. Board of Education, also defective? Similarly, weren't interpretations that supported Jim Crow and voting discrimination similarly defective? Is our system better with these reinterpretations or without them?

Job growth beginning to take off

The Department of Labor released its April jobs report this morning with mostly good news. According to the report, employment, as recorded in the household and establishment surveys, was up sharply last month. The household survey indicates that the number of employed people increased by 550,000 on a seasonally-adjusted basis, while the preliminary establishment figures indicate that the number of jobs increased by 290,000. Establishment figures for February and March were also revised upward. The March figures now indicate that 230,000 jobs were added that month rather than the 162,000 that were originally estimated.

Job growth in April was spread across nearly all sectors of the economy. Employment in manufacturing, services, and government were all up. The only major sector to see a decline was transportation and warehousing (a potential dark cloud for the logistics-heavy Greensboro economy).

Unemployment edged up to 9.7 percent, but this mainly reflected an incredible 805,000 people entering or reentering the labor force. The number of people who were unemployed because they lost jobs was down, while the numbers of people who were unemployed because they left jobs, reentered the work force, or were new entrants each rose. Overall, the percentage of the population that was employed rose to 58.8 percent, the highest percentage since August of last year.

It's not at all certain that this level of job growth will continue. The debt crisis in Greece is showing signs of spreading to other countries and provoking a wider financial crisis.

Two months of moderate job recovery, which have restored more than half a million jobs to the U.S. economy, are good news. Still, it will take another two and a half years at this pace to recover the 8 million or so jobs that were lost since the end of 2007. Let's hope for even better news.

Buy 'em by the sack

In a sure sign that the apocalypse is nigh, White Castle is selling a new scented candle.

What better way to celebrate National Hamburger Month than with the aroma of a greasy White Castle burger? With the fast food chain's new scented candle, burger lovers can now enjoy the smell of sliders and onions all day long.

The candle's "steam grilled on a bed of onions" scent was created by Nest Fragrances, and the limited-edition candle comes in a ceramic holder designed to mimic White Castle's hamburger packaging, the fast food chain said this week.

Thank goodness it's the burger scent and not the smell-in-the-closed-car-during-the-drive-home scent.

VA AG moves to chill warming research

Virginia's wingnut Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli II, who is apparently unsatisfied with quixotic suits against the federal government, has found a new target for his politically-motivated ire, climate researcher Michael Mann. The Washington Post reports

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II is demanding that the University of Virginia turn over a broad range of documents from a former professor to determine whether he defrauded taxpayers as he sought grants for global warming research.

The civil investigative demand asks for all data and materials presented by former professor Michael Mann when he applied for five research grants from the university. It also gives the school until May 27 to produce all correspondence or e-mails between Mann and 39 other scientists since 1999.

Cuccinelli's short tenure has included several politically-motivated suits and investigations, including suits against the Environmental Protection Agency over its consideration of greenhouse gas regulations and against the new federal health insurance reforms. These and other misguided stunts make him a darling of the radical right, though his quixotic efforts should earn him the scorn of Virginia taxpayers.

The investigation of Professor Mann is harrassment, pure and simple. Professor Mann is a respected and accomplished researcher. However, Mann's research a decade ago on the "hockey stick" contributed to the findings U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and put him in the crosshairs for climate change skeptics. Mann's methods and results have been disputed, but the general findings have ultimately been upheld.

Mann has previously been subject to right-wing political scrutiny.

The message from these inquisitions is clear. Researchers, who accept federal funds or work at state-funded institutions, publish politically inconvenient results at their own risk.