Ancestry.com Shares Rise As Senate Investigation Expands to All Persons of Russian Descent

Ancestry.com logo | Source: Ancestry.com

NEW YORK–Shares of Ancestry.com (ACOM) soared this week on news that the Senate investigation into Russian election meddling has expanded to consider all persons of “Russian descent” as possible suspects.*

Democrats Mark the End of Deficits Matter Month in DC

Senator Schumer, who helped lead the Democratic contributions to Deficits Matter Month. | Official Portrait

WASHINGTON, DC–This week, Democratic leaders marked the end of Deficits Matter Month by advocating for equal increases in defense and non-defense spending in the next bill to fund the government. (By contrast, some Republicans have advocated massive increases in defense spending without comparably reckless increases in domestic budgets.)*

As War Pre-orders Jump 12%, CIA Worries About Meeting Demand for Enemies

Nobody creates enemies as efficiently as the Agency. | Source: CIA Website, via Wikimedia Commons

WASHINGTON, DC–Last week, President Trump approved a defense policy bill that includes a total budget of $692B, marking a nearly 12% increase in pre-ordered wars over the prior year.

Ordinarily, this surge in war pre-orders would be good news for the CIA, which creates most of the key enemy components needed for the wars. However, at least one insider at the Agency is concerned that they won’t be able to keep up with the demand.*

GOP Senator Goes As Fiscal Conservative for Halloween

Senator John McCain, out of character. | Credit: Department of Defense

WASHINGTON, DC–Holding a pillow case filled with sweet, chocolatey contraband, a beaming Senator John McCain (R-AZ) briefed reporters on his Halloween caper from a lit front porch in the Beltway.*True to his Maverick reputation, the senior senator chose a unique costume for the occasion. He said he was dressed as a Fiscal Conservative.

Trump Respectfully Responds to Gold Star Widow Criticism

President Trump describes the vital importance of this story | Credit: Marc Nozell, Flickr

WASHINGTON, DC–In the wake of an ambush that claimed the lives of four US servicemembers in Niger, the American press corps has been doggedly pursuing the most important aspect of the story: What did President Trump say on the phone to one of the widows and what was his tone?*

After Sexual Assault Allegations, Weinstein Looks to Bill Clinton for Hope

Harvey Weinstein | Credit: David Shankbone, Wikimedia Commons

NEW YORK, NEW YORK–After a pair of bombshell stories in The New York Times and The New Yorker, which featured multiple women accusing him of sexual harassment and sexual assault, film executive Harvey Weinstein has seen his world quickly crumbling around him.

His wife filed for divorce. The eponymous company he founded severed ties with him. And nearly every famous acquaintance he had in Hollywood or Washington has gone on record denouncing him (though a few took appropriate time to verify that sexual assault committed by a donor still counts as reprehensible). Among Democrats, who once saw him as a valuable political ally, Weinstein may be less popular than Donald Trump at the moment–a distinction political scientists previously thought akin to absolute zero.*

US Officials: Iran Nuclear Deal Failed to Address Non-Nuclear Issues

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s Foreign Minister and Deal Spirit Violator | Credit: Austria’s foreign ministry, Wikimedia Commons

WASHINGTON, DC–Noting that Iran has failed to live up to the Spirit of the agreement, senior White House officials told The Daily Face Palm that it would be in America’s national interest to unilaterally withdraw from the Iran Nuclear Deal.*

Spanish PM Confused by Catalan Crowds Since No Vote Occurred

A Catalan flag that does not exist. | Credit: Angela Llop, Flickr

MADRID, SPAIN–Speaking to reporters after an allegedly tumultuous weekend in Catalonia, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said he was not sure what 2.3 million Catalans were doing out on Sunday since he had not given them permission to exercise self-determination.

An illegal independence referendum was scheduled for October 1, which might have explained the crowds, but Rajoy noted that, in fact, “There was no independence referendum“.

Rajoy went on to express sympathy with the late King George III of England, saying that the ungrateful American colonists’ Declaration of Independence was illegal and that the rule of law requires that they continue to respect the legitimate authority of the English Crown.

*This is a satirical post.

Replace Confederate Statues with FDR

FDR could be coming to a park near you. | Credit: Dsdugan, Wikimedia Commons

In recent weeks, the Confederate statue controversy has died down. I have been grateful for this shift, as no good ever comes from questioning the status quo or taking an interest in US history.*

Still, I fear that the divisive episode may not be fully behind us. And if it should reemerge, I have developed a grand compromise that should satisfy everyone: Replace all of the Confederate statues with statues of our noble 32nd president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

This solution may not be obvious, but it offers something for everyone.*

Spanish PM on Catalonia: Democracy Will Never Undermine Our Democracy

Flag of the infamous democratic terrorists of
Catalonia | Credit: Angela Llop, Flickr

WASHINGTON, DC–Speaking to reporters at a joint press conference with US President Trump, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said that “democracy will never undermine our democracy.”

The prime minister was referring to the planned referendum in Catalonia on so-called “independence”, and the turn of phrase has become something of a rallying cry for Rajoy and his supporters as he works to quell the democratic insurgency in that too-autonomous region. Rajoy later vowed that his government “would use all means necessary to defeat the radical democratic terrorists”.*

Explainer: Here’s What the First Amendment Means for #TakeAKnee

 ...

Poll: Majority Believes Trump Is Focused on “Issues that Matter”

President Trump describes the vital
importance of #StandForTheAnthem.
Credit: Marc Nozell

WASHINGTON, DC–A new Fox News / Rasmussen poll has found that nearly 65% of registered voters agreed or strongly agreed that “President Trump is focused on the issues that matter.”

The poll came after an energetic weekend for the president, in which he made headlines for repeatedly criticizing NFL players for bad posture during the national anthem. The resulting controversy had fans across the nation choosing sides in the debate, and a majority has sided with the president.*

After Trump Tirade, Kaepernick Optimistic About Job Prospects

Kaepernick, right, blaspheming against
the US national anthem. | Credit: Marcio
 Jose Sanchez, AP Photo via ESPN

SAN FRANCISCO, CA–Feeling relieved after being called a “son of a b****” by the President of the United States on Twitter, free agent quarterback Colin Kaepernick said he expected to sign with a new team within the week.

Kaepernick has been in the crosshairs of the President for his silent protests of the US national anthem during the 2016 season. Kaepernick voluntarily decided to become a free agent from the 49ers at the end of last season, but has failed to find an enduring spot on another roster since.*

Fed Keeps Interest Rates Steady, Will Start Burning $10 Billion per Month in ‘Epic’ Bonfire

A visual depiction of quantitative tightening |
Credit: Purple Slog, Flickr

WASHINGTON, DC–In a widely anticipated move, the Federal Reserve decided on Wednesday to keep short-term interest rates steady, and announced a start date for its plan to burn $10 billion per month in an “epic” bonfire.

The bonfire program represents the other side of the extraordinary monetary policy measures the Fed implemented in the wake of the Great Recession. Those measures included the creation of trillions of dollars in new money, which were then spent primarily on US Treasury Bonds and mortgage-backed securities, with the goal of lowering long-term interest rates and increasing economic activity.

Although economic growth never recovered to historically normal rates, interest rates did plummet as intended and have stayed consistently low. Now the Fed has determined the policies were successful enough, and is starting to unwind the initial money creation. This led to the tricky question of how to dispose of all the money they printed.

Advocates: Let the GOP Healthcare Repeal Effort Die with Dignity

Let the GOP healthcare repeal have the medicine it needs. |
Credit: Charles Williams, Flickr

WASHINGTON, DC–Saying that the last days are always the hardest to watch, a group of activists and lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week argued that the GOP Obamacare repeal effort should be allowed to die with dignity.*

“There are good days and bad days,” Senator Rand Paul explained, “but deep down, we’ve all known the patient is terminal.”

Harvard Rescinds Manning Fellowship, Regrets Tarnishing Brand with Integrity

Noted peace criminal
Chelsea Manning,
who exposed thousands of
innocent classified documents
to the elements.
Credit: Tim Travers Hawkins,
Wikimedia Commons

BOSTON, MA–On Friday, the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics withdrew its fellowship invitation to Chelsea Manning, the notorious traitor who leaked thousands of classified documents and exposed the inner-workings of America’s benevolent foreign policy.*

When the invitation was originally extended, it set off a firestorm of criticism from current and former high-ranking officials who helped oversee that foreign policy and were inexplicably upset at having their good deeds revealed to the public. Current CIA Director Mike Pompeo abruptly pulled out of a speech at the Harvard Kennedy School in protest. Additionally, former Acting CIA Director, and noted proponent of assassinating Russians and Iranians, Michael Morell penned a letter of resignation from his current post at the Kennedy School, thereby denying a generation of aspiring, patriotic sociopaths an experienced lecturer in the field.

Skeptical of Trump’s Judgment, Senate Votes to Preserve Unlimited War Authorization

Donald Trump describes the number of Senators
willing to vote for or against any of the wars.
| Credit: Marc Nozell

WASHINGTON–On Wednesday, the US Senate voted 61-36 to end debate and kill an amendment that would have established an expiration date on America’s current Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs).*

The AUMFs have drawn criticism over the years for being both vague and stale. Apple comes out with a new iPhone almost every year. By contrast, the US hasn’t come out with a new AUMF in nearly 15 years.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), who spoke in favor of sunsetting the current authorizations, said that the AUMFs have been “terrific products that have exceeded all expectations in terms of durability and versatility,” alluding to the fact that the authorizations have been used to justify a highly diverse set of conflicts against various enemies.

“But now that the US government has gotten their use out of them,” Murphy continued, “we’re ready for something new.”

Stranded Florida Man Relieved He Didn’t Have to Overpay for Gas

A person uses their SUV to stay above flood waters
 | Credit: Izinzer, Flickr

MIAMI–Speaking to reporters on a cell phone from the hood of his SUV while flood waters closed in around him, local resident Phil Stewart said he was grateful to the Attorney General for cracking down on would-be price gouging by gas stations.*

Speaker Ryan: “The Some-of-the-Debt Ceiling Is Essential”

Paul Ryan | Credit: Gage Skidmore, Flickr

WASHINGTON, DC–Reacting to President Trump’s vocal support for abolishing the some-of-the-debt ceiling, House Speaker Paul Ryan was outraged and defiant, telling reporters he would absolutely oppose the president on this issue.*

Battered by Past Storms, Hurricane Harvey Finishes Off Fiscal Conservativism

The remnants of Fiscal Conservativism
| Credit: Lance Cpl. Scott Whiting,
DVIDSHUB, Flickr

TEXAS–The flood waters and storm clouds of Hurricane Harvey are beginning to recede, but residents in the small town of Fiscal Conservatism say things will never be the same again.*

Surveying the damage after President Trump quickly agreed to a nominal 3-month debt ceiling extension with the Democratic leadership to ensure federal spending on Harvey relief, resident Rand Paul (R-KY) told The Daily Face Palm, “I don’t think we can recover from this.”

FBI Declares Antifa “Domestic Keynesians”

Caricature of former economist Paul Krugman
| By DonkeyHotey – Image , CC BY 2.0,
Wikimedia Commons

WASHINGTON, DC–Saying that the black-clad activist group has now become a significant threat to Americans’ liberty, property, and ground-floor windows, the FBI has officially decided to label the “Antifa” group “Domestic Keynesians”.*

The FBI noted that this is one of the highest threat designations they have for individual groups, roughly equivalent to the sunburst orange threat level for the country at large.

Though small in number, the anti-fascist groups are known for punching above their weight with high-profile counterprotests. They’re also known for punching.

Police Grateful to Trump for Restored Access to Necessary Tanks, Weapons

Thanks to the AG’s decision, dangerous
backpack-wielding protesters will once again be
confronted with overwhelming force. |
Credit: Scott Olson, Getty Images

On Monday, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the White House was eliminating all Obama-era restrictions on a controversial arms-transfer program, which allows domestic law enforcement agencies to purchase military surplus equipment.

Then-President Obama ordered restrictions put in place in 2015 after embarrassing photos emerged out of Ferguson, Missouri during high-profile police brutality protests. The photos featured heavily armed police in camouflage garb threatening protesters armed with cameras, leading to some confusion whether the pictures were taken in a US city or in one of the US’s many photogenic war zones.

President Obama responded to the mishap by establishing draconian restrictions on the surplus program, preventing police from purchasing even the most critical law enforcement tools like armored tanks, high-caliber weapons, grenade launchers, and bayonets (in case they come across any remaining redcoats on their patrol).*

Rejecting the Transgender Ban: We Cannot Come Together Without Conquering Together

Depiction of an early national team-building
exercise in Egypt | Source: Flickr

When I write My Two Cents, I do my very best to stick to the straight and narrow of moderate centrism. So much damage is done to our democracy by politicians and voters who form principled opinions based on a coherent worldview instead of firmly sticking to the sensible middle ground position.*

But after hearing the news that the Trump Administration really is moving forward with his tweeted plan to prohibit transgender individuals from serving in the military, I realized I could not hold back what is left of my flaccid ideology any longer.

Not only is this latest trans-ban bad policy, and bad politics, it is fundamentally immoral.

Introducing My Two Cents

The Daily Face Palm is excited to introduce My Two Cents, a bland new opinion column that advocates responsible centrist solutions to today’s problems.

Following in the wholly unremarkable footsteps of Senators Robert Menendez and John Kasich, My Two Cents believes that consistent principles often get in the way of effective governance. Both parties have a lot to offer Americans, and multiple studies have shown that the best policies come from a compromise between slightly left-of-center Democrats and slightly right-of-center Republicans.

We don’t need new ideas to improve this country. We just need the political courage to double down on the old ideas.

It’s time to put patriotism before principle and embrace the common sense reforms that will move this exceptional country forward.

Trump on Afghanistan: “I Usually Follow My Instincts, Except When They’re Right”

Donald Trump describes the probability of success
for his new Afghan War strategy. Credit: Marc Nozell

Fort Myer, VA–In a widely anticipated foreign policy speech on Monday, President Trump laid out a bold new branding strategy for the War in Afghanistan. He also offered some important insights into his decision-making process.

Trump explained to the audience that his original instinct on Afghanistan was to pull US troops out, a position he has expressed openly for several years. But he ultimately came to a different conclusion now that he is president.

As he summarized, “I usually follow my instincts, except when they’re right.”*

John McCain Condemns All Nazis Not in Ukrainian Government

Washington, DC–Seeking to further distance himself from an embattled President Trump, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) reiterated at a press conference over the weekend that he “strongly condemns the KKK, white supremacists, and all Nazis that are not in the Ukrainian government.”*

Is Trump’s Foot-in-Mouth Disease an Impeachable Offense?

Donald Trump attempts to spot his approval rating
at a distance, and the back of some guy’s head.
Credit: Marc Nozell

Washington, DC–In the wake of the horrific violence that broke out in Charlottesville, VA between white nationalists and counter-protesters over the weekend, President Trump has offered a shifting response that was widely seen as inappropriate.

Trump’s reaction has been unnerving for many Republicans and has been received poorly by many American voters.

It has also created a new opening for Democrats to criticize the president without appearing unduly partisan. Public opinion polls show that neo-Nazi groups have an abysmal approval rating in the US among Democrats and Republicans, with the ideology scoring even lower than the US Congress–a feat political scientists previously thought to be impossible.

The new political opportunity is now being aggressively seized by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), who has announced plans to submit impeachment articles against President Trump over his response to the tragic events in Charlottesville.*

After Specific Condemnation, Senator Expects White Supremacist Issue Wrapped Up in “Weeks”

Marco Rubio | Credit: Gage Skidmore

WASHINGTON, DC–Praising President Donald Trump for his much-anticipated remarks denouncing the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists by name, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) told NBC News he expected the problem to be resolved in “weeks”.*

Rubio acknowledged that Trump “took his time” to issue a proper condemnation, and was actually one of several Republicans to criticize the White House’s initial response to the deadly violence in Charlottesville, VA. In his first remarks on the incident, Trump denounced violence “on many sides” and failed to condemn any specific groups or ideologies.

Trump’s early comments were widely seen as out of character for an outspoken president with a famously porous filter between his thoughts and his Twitter feed.

Texas Declares State Holiday in Honor of George W. Bush

Barack Obama, Official Portrait

Texas has decided to create a new statewide holiday in honor of the 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush. The new holiday will occur every year on July 6, which is the former president’s birthday.*

US Celebrates UN Security Council Action to Starve More North Koreans with Sanctions

US, UK Ambassadors vote to impose sanctions.
Source: AP / Mary Altaffer via NBC News

US government officials and commentators were excited to announce this week that UN Security Council had unanimously agreed to impose new sanctions against North Korea, further limiting the country’s already anemic foreign exports.*

The move comes amid months of escalating tensions between the US and North Korean governments. During this period, the US has heightened rhetoric and added new sanctions to deter North Korea from testing missiles and further developing the nuclear weapons capabilities. North Korea, for its part, has continued testing its long-range missiles and developing nuclear weapons.

Consumer Advocate Proposes Right to Die Hopeless Legislation

Credit: Charles Williams, Flickr

Renowned consumer advocate Sarah Walsh is proposing new legislation that would ensure terminally ill patients can die in peace without any possibility of getting better.*

US Interventionists Hope to Snap 16-year Losing Streak in North Korea

Credit: Brad.K, Flickr

US officials are expressing some optimism that a looming conflict with North Korea will give the US Military Interventionists a chance to pick up a much-needed victory.*

The possible match-up against North Korea comes at a delicate time for the Interventionist organization.

The team has suffered an unbroken string of losses over the past 16 years against a diverse array of opponents from the Middle East and South Asia divisions. In many of the wars, the Interventionists seemed to have the upper-hand early only to see the leads slip away into chaos in the end.

In an effort to right the ship, the US Interventionists recently brought on a new head coach in the form of General James Mattis. The team also replaced much of its back office and appointed Donald Trump as the new general manager.

In his characteristically brash and repetitive fashion, Trump declared, “We’ll handle North Korea. We’re going to be able to handle them. It will be handled. We handle everything.”

Fans of the Interventionists want to believe that the club is finally ready to turn the page on its long-running drought, but many are reluctant to get their hopes up. “It all sounds good, but I’ll believe it when I see the scoreboard,” one fan told The Daily Face Palm.

They have good reason to be skeptical. In the weeks and months leading up to previous conflicts, Interventionist leaders have often offered rosy predictions of victory that were not borne out in reality.

For example, Kenneth Adelman, a high-ranking Interventionist executive prior to Iraq War 2, famously claimed that “liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk”.

Likewise, then-General Manager Barack Obama famously referred to the Islamic State as a “JV team” in early 2014 before the US Interventionists began formally fighting the group. While the comment was clearly meant to downplay the Islamic State’s abilities, the war against the group proved more difficult than initial predictions and is still ongoing even now.

And of course, who could forget then-Assistant Coach Hillary Clinton’s halftime interview during the war in Libya in which she prematurely declared victory? “We came, we saw, he died,” she said at the time.

The words would come back to haunt her and the Interventionists, however, as the country of Libya quickly devolved into a Hobbesian state of nature that used to be confined to philosophical treatises.

Analysts we spoke to were split on the question of whether the North Korea conflict may ultimately allow the US Interventionists to get in the win column for the first time in 21st century. However, they all agreed that this was one of the last chances before the franchise might have to consider shutting down.

“At this point, they’ve tried almost everything,” one commentator explained. “Counterinsurgency, drone strikes, invasion, fighting the terrorists here, backing the terrorists there, overthrowing governments, propping up governments–nothing seems to work.”

“If they fail in North Korea too, it might be time to hang up the cluster munitions for good.”



*This is a satirical post. Any quotes not cited with a hyperlink are fictional in nature.

Entire World Terrified After Senator McCain Calls for Bipartisanship

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) made headlines last week with his dramatic return to the Senate floor after being diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer.

One of his first actions while back on Capitol Hill was to cast a decisive vote in favor of starting the formal debate procedure on healthcare reform in the Senate. Ironically, he then proceeded to vote against the healthcare bill that had the best chance of passing and was again decisive in scuttling the Senate’s efforts.

While these McCain votes captured many of the headlines in the US, international observers were focused on a different aspect of McCain’s busy week. Specifically, upon his return to the Senate, McCain took the opportunity to give an impassioned plea for Democratic and Republican lawmakers to come together and collaborate on new legislation.*

One policy analyst based in North Africa spoke to The Daily Face Palm about why foreigners were so concerned. The analyst requested anonymity for fear of being targeted by a US defensive assassination strike.

“Bipartisanship in the US often results in bad domestic policy for Americans, but it always results in catastrophic foreign policy for the rest of us,” the analyst explained, citing the US approach to Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Israel-Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen, and somehow still Afghanistan, among others as evidence for his fears.

The concerns were shared by regular civilians on the ground as well.

“We know how this ends,” confided one Iraqi villager, who said he is still trying to rebuild after America’s last round of across-the-aisle deal making.

Meanwhile, a Yemeni man had managed to find a small silver lining in America’s enduring interventions in that country, but shared a broadly pessimistic outlook on the idea of more cooperation in Washington, DC.

“The [drone war] has gotten the children to enjoy going outside even when it’s cloudy or rainy, since they know it’s less likely that a hellfire missile will interrupt a soccer game in those conditions,” the man told The Daily Face Palm. “But we’ve just started getting used to the cluster munitions. Who knows what indiscriminate weapon the Democrats and Republicans will agree on sending the Saudis next?”

At the time of publication, there were already strong signs that these foreigners’ concerns were well-founded. Near the end of last week, the Senate voted 98-2 in favor of new economic sanctions on a smorgasbord of countries on the DC wish list.

*This is a satirical post. While the news about Senator McCain’s actions and the sanctions vote are all accurately described, the quotes ascribed to foreign observers are fictional.

After Voting Against Sanctions, Sanders Reassures Supporters He Doesn’t Have Principles

Bernie Sanders Painting – DonkeyHotey, Flickr

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) came under heavy criticism this week after being one of only two senators to vote against this quarter’s batch of new sanctions against Iran, North Korea, and Russia.*

For example, former Clinton aide Adam Parkhomenko lashed out at Sanders on Twitter: “Feel the Bern? Bernie Sanders voted against Russian sanctions today. 98 Senators voted for Russian sanctions today. Sanders voted the same way anyone with the last name Trump would vote if they were in the Senate. No excuses ― stop making them for him.”

Oddly, Sanders apparently agreed with Parkhomenko that his supporters shouldn’t be making excuses for him. So he decided to make the excuses personally, by reassuring Democrats and progressives that his vote had nothing to do with principle.

“Make no mistake. I did not vote against the sanctions because sanctions have a terrible track record of changing policy or because they often culminate in a military conflict where thousands of innocent people die,” Sanders clarified. “Like you, I still believe that ratcheting up tensions with Russia and North Korea is the right solution, and look, who really cares if some innocent Russians or North Koreans die?”

“But Iran is a different story,” Sanders continued. “This is one of the only foreign policy conflicts that President Obama actually improved. These new sanctions threaten the Iran Deal and Obama’s ill-begotten reputation as an advocate for peace. We must defend both. Thank you.”



*This is a satirical post. While the vote discussed is real and the quote from Parkhomenko is legitimate, Sanders’ statement is embellished a bit. We’d argue the subtext is the same, however. You can read his actual statement here.

Kissinger Calls for Extending Military Service Ban to Cis-gender Americans

Following up on President Trump’s controversial Twitter directive to ban transgender people from serving in the military, Henry Kissinger said the ban didn’t go far enough. The venerable foreign policy expert proposed extending the ban to cis-gender people as well.*

Kissinger assured reporters the move was entirely about maximizing military readiness and had nothing to do with equality or a desire to see fewer Americans die in useless foreign wars.

“Today, America fights a different kind of war, where good and evil are not always set in stone. Sometimes the American interest requires us to fight against Al Qaeda, and sometimes you’ll be funneling manpads to them,” Kissinger noted, referring to powerful shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles often given to the dubious American ally of the moment.

If the US wants to win these wars, Kissinger argued, the American soldier of today must be prepared to deal with this ambiguity.

“So let the non-binaries fight the terrorists,” Kissinger said, using a broad term for people that do not formally identify with either gender.

“They already understand that the world is not black and white, masculine and feminine, human rights-abuser and respectable ally.”



*This is a satirical post. All quotations cited above are fictional.

Progressive Opposes Universal Healthcare After Reading Sarcastic Facebook Comment About Positive and Negative Rights

Sean MacEntee, Flickr

“Healthcare is a human right.”*

It was a common refrain for Senator Bernie Sanders and his progressive supporters during his ill-fated presidential campaign last year. Like his progressive base, Sanders advocates for a single-payer government-run healthcare system as the best way to secure this right.

Seattle resident Ben Foster used to share Sanders’s vision for improving the American healthcare system. But he changed his mind after he encountered a “particularly witty” comment on Facebook mocking the idea of positive rights from his acquaintance Annie Kist.

According to Mr. Foster’s account of the extents, he had just shared an insightful analysis on the healthcare debate from Think Progress, which modestly argued, amongst other things, that healthcare is in fact a basic human right and that Republicans may consume the hearts of the uninsured as a delicacy at private events.

Ms. Kist was one of the first to comment on the post writing:

TFW someone says a positive right exists #amirite lol

Mr. Foster, who had never heard this line of argument, thought she might indeed be “rite” and replied. What followed was a long thread of inquiry and discussion on the libertarian theory of positive and negative rights, a discussion that frequently tested Facebook’s austere 3,000 character limit on individual posts.

Mr. Foster told The DFP that he was surprised that the conversation never degenerated into vicious and pointless cacophony of name-calling and spite that results in one party unfollowing or unfriending the other. “After the first joke in good faith, it evolved into a really productive and civil exchange of ideas,” Foster said, adding that it was “totally worth it” to stay up until 2 AM PST to finish hashing things out.

Social media researchers who spoke to The DFP on the condition of anonymity for no obvious reason, said Mr. Foster was right to be surprised about the productive nature of the discussion. They estimate that this may be only the second documented case of a fruitful political conversation occurring on Facebook among people with different ideological perspectives.

“I used to think my political opponents were greedy monsters that were intent on literally killing poor people so that millionaires could have a small tax break,” Mr. Foster told The DFP, expressing a view similar to that held by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and other leading progressives.

“But now I know some people just view politics primarily through a deontological lens and are trying to uphold consistent principles.”



*This is a satirical post. With the exception of the general slogan attributed to Bernie Sanders, which is real, the remaining quotations and events described are fictional.

New Empirical Evidence from Seattle Changes Minds in Economics

Among economists, the minimum wage is a contentious issue. The two sides of the debate fall largely along ideological lines, and both camps can point to arguments and studies that seem to support their position.*

For the past few years, the debate looked intractable.

But now, new minimum wage evidence out of Seattle is changing minds and is poised to resolve the question once and for all.

One economist who found the new evidence persuasive was Dr. Patricia Matthews, who spoke to The Daily Face Palm about her experience.

“Usually, when I hear about a new minimum study, I just skip straight to the results to see if they conform to my pre-existing views,” Dr. Matthews told The DFP. She added that this is really the surest way to know whether to praise the researchers for their hard work or raise pedantic objections on their methodology.

But she took a different approach to the new Seattle studies. Echoing the views of many other economists that have spoken publicly on the new results, Dr. Matthews said she was growing bored of the minimum wage debate.

“Look, I know the demand curve slopes downward, and I know Card and Krueger like the back of my hand. Metaphorically shouting those arguments back and forth was fun for awhile, but I was ready to move on,” Matthews said.

These sentiments have many economists looking at Seattle’s minimum wage studies with fresh eyes, and it could finally bring about an economic consensus on the minimum wage.

At press time, the Austrian School of economics was reportedly rethinking its emphasis on praxeology due to the widespread success of empirical studies informing and settling economic questions in Seattle and elsewhere.



*This is a satirical post. The quotations above and the individual quoted are fictional.

Lockheed Exec: Dysfunctional F-35 Perfect for Today’s Foreign Policy Needs

Hardly a month goes by without news of some preposterous new malfunction on the well-known F-35 fighter jet manufactured by Lockheed Martin.*

Critics often point to these episodes as clear evidence that the plane is a colossal waste of money and an abject failure.

But within the company, the program has a much better reputation. Internally, the F-35 is regarded as one of Lockheed’s greatest achievements in terms of marketing, engineering, and even ethics. Lockheed insiders view the F-35 as a revolutionary product, a weapon finally suited for the uniquely small foreign policy challenges of the 21st century.

To understand this disconnect, one must look to the context in which the F-35 emerged. A close reading of the history suggests the program is not the boondoggle as critics suggest, but rather a figurative coups.

For years, Lockheed Martin has been the world leader in weapons sales, racking up billions of dollars in revenue each year. The company seems to have mastered the complicated mix of engineering and lobbying required to succeed in the industry, and the shareholders have enjoyed the benefits.

But behind the soaring stock price and consistent year-over-year results, company executives realized there were significant human costs of their success. The problem was their weapons worked, perhaps too well–against combatants and civilians alike.

When the US military inevitably killed civilians or occupied a country aided by Lockheed’s technology, far more people would turn against the US and plot attacks against US citizens. The phenomenon is well-known in defense and intelligence circles as “blowback”. One famous US general also described it as “insurgent math”, where each incident of collateral damage creates far more terrorists than were killed in the initial strike–creating a self-perpetuating and futile cycle.

This process was good for business by establishing an inexhaustible source of demand for weapons. But it also jeopardized American lives. For many at the company, this was a bridge too far.

“We just wanted to profit off the US taxpayer by selling the government weapons it didn’t need,” one anonymous Lockheed executive told The Daily Face Palm, adding that he was trying to make a dishonest living like anyone else. “But we didn’t want to get our fellow Americans killed.”

This created a dilemma for the leadership of Lockheed. On the one hand, most of their business model relied on government weapons contracts; their shareholders and employees were counting on them to remain profitable. On the other, it was increasingly obvious that their products were having the opposite of the intended effect–they were not making Americans safer.

Due to its large size and specialization, the company could not realistically change direction and get out of the defense business altogether. Such a drastic move would have caused job losses in every single congressional district in the United States.

Instead, the company began to brainstorm ways it could retain its defense contract profits while limiting civilian casualties.

One of the first ideas proposed was the idea of “surgical strikes” and “smart bombs”. However, these were soon dismissed as simple “marketing BS” according to the Lockheed executive, who participated in the discussions. “Turns out foreign civilians don’t care if their family members were mistakenly killed by a smart bomb or a dumb one.”

But eventually, the discussions produced a breakthrough. Lockheed’s leadership realized that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, “the US doesn’t have any real enemies anymore. So why does it need real weapons?”

This epiphany ultimately shaped the F-35 program as a compromise between Lockheed’s desire to retain corporate welfare and its goal not to endanger Americans.

To all outside appearances, the F-35 looked like any other major weapons program–huge price tag, cost overruns, delays, massive profits, some sick fonts, etc. But there was one key difference–it was completely impotent.

“The program truly is a model for the future,” the executive told the DFP. “The F-35 couldn’t kill civilians even if it wanted to. Hell, some days it can barely fly.”

“That means Americans are safe, and so is our bottom line. What’s not to like?”



*This is a satirical post. The quotes and sources cited above are fictional, but we’d like to assume they are more or less reflective of reality.

Haley: US Willing to Fight to the Last Korean

Speaking to reporters in New York, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley weighed in on the North Korean crisis. As the leader of the world’s only indispensable nation, President Trump has some “hard choices” to make in the coming days, Haley said.*

“The American people do not always understand why the US is involved in conflicts as remote as North Korea. Some voters wonder, ‘How is this our problem? Why don’t we let the people in the region sort it out?'”

“But,” Haley continued, “the US must remain engaged. The rest of the world looks to the United States–and especially to President Trump–for leadership. And sometimes that means we have to make sacrifices for the greater good and to protect our allies.”

Critics of military intervention argue that it would cost tens of thousands of lives in North Korea and in South Korea as well. South Korea’s densely populated capital of Seoul is near the border and within the range of North Korean artillery.

Ambassador Haley did not find these objections persuasive, however.

If Kim Jong Un continues his pursuit of a deliverable nuclear weapon, Haley said President Trump is prepared to make the necessary sacrifices. “The US is willing to fight to the last South Korean.”


*This is a satirical post. Hat tip to Scott Horton for aptly summarizing the US position on North Korea and inspiring this piece.

Why 10-Year Budget Projections Are Worse Than Useless

In recent months, we have seen a string of shocking headline figures based on 10-year budget projections.

For example, when the House’s American Health Care Act (AHCA) bill got scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), we learned that 23 million fewer people would be insured, but that it would reduce the deficit by $119 billion. When Trump proposed his initial budget, Bloomberg said the plan included $3.6 trillion in budget cuts.

These numbers sound enormous. It’s estimated that there are 325 million total in the US, so the 23 million people would represent 7% of the entire current population. Likewise, total expenditures of the US government in FY 2016 came to $3.9 trillion. In the normal meaning of language, a $3.6 trillion budget cut would suggest that Trump was planning to eliminate nearly the entire federal government.

But of course, that’s not what he actually proposed–in fact, on net, Trump didn’t propose cutting the budget at all. His plan called for a 16 percent increase in the budget through 2020.

And the CBO analysis didn’t say the AHCA would cut the deficit or health insurance immediately. Rather, their analysis found that 10 years from now, the plan would result in 23 million fewer people having insurance and the cumulative deficit over 10 years, would be reduced by $119 billion relative to current law. That is, on average, the annual decrease to the deficit would be a mere $12 billion due to the AHCA.

This type of long-term analysis and language is commonplace in US national politics, but it achieves no useful outcome. It confuses far more than it clarifies. It does not provide accurate estimates of long-term results. It does not improve the average voter’s understanding of policy effects. And it gives politicians a means to claim they are being fiscally responsible without actually exercising any prudence whatsoever.

Missing the Mark

When the president prepares a budget plan, there should be little pretense about accuracy. It is fundamentally a political document prepared by the Executive Branch, and we should not be surprised if reality turns out somewhat less rosy than the future foreseen by the president’s sales pitch.

But when long-term projections are provided by the CBO, the figures are supposed to be much more credible. Indeed, in the media, the Congressional Budget Office is almost always described as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, giving it an air of authority.

The problem is that the CBO estimates have proven to be consistently wrong as well. And in general, the CBO has been wrong in the same direction–it overstates economic growth, underestimates government outlays, and underestimates the effects of economic incentives. The net result is that the CBO projects lower debt and lower deficits than actually end up occurring.

Meanwhile, when it comes to healthcare, the Congressional Budget Office underestimated the job declines that would be produced by changing economic incentives, and it substantially overestimated how many people would gain healthcare coverage by about 11 million. Again, the bias points in the same unhelpful direction–the CBO underestimates the costs of government intervention and overestimates the benefits.

This bias is concerning, but it’s not really the main problem. The problem is that the CBO has been given an impossible task of projecting the performance of a massively complex economy over a very long time period. Even with the very best economists, that would not turn out well.

A Logical Contradiction
The CBO’s already herculean undertaking is made more difficult by the fact that they must make their projections as if current law will not change.

This is the logical and only conceivable assumption for them to make. (Clearly, they can’t conjure into existence entirely new policies for the purpose of their analysis.)

Yet, at the same time, this assumption is plainly absurd. In virtually every election cycle, politicians campaign on bringing new changes to Washington. Even incumbents run on making change, and national elections of some magnitude occur every two years.

So the CBO has to assume the law won’t change for ten years, even as most of the politicians that make the laws risk changing in two years–and all of them advocate for changes of one stripe or another while in office.

This combination is not going to produce an informative result.

Instead, the time horizon for analysis should take the US political cycle into account. Looking beyond one or two years is a fool’s errand.

Budget Cuts “Tomorrow”

Some bars have a sign in them that says “Free beer tomorrow”. The sign is always up and never changes. There will always be free beer tomorrow, but alas, tomorrow never comes.

Something similar happens with these 10-year budget projections. Congress has a knack for starting any proposed cuts in the later years, while letting spending run wild in the immediate future.

Since the headlines are often based on the full 10-year run, it doesn’t superficially matter when the cuts occur. A $200 billion cut in year 7 would look the same as a $200 billion cut in year 1 in much of the reporting. However, a $200 billion cut in year 1 has real world consequences that a $200 billion cut in year 7 does not–maybe taking away the money from a powerful special interests, maybe eliminating programs, etc. Even if these cuts are good policy, they will encounter resistance, and the resistance will be much stronger if the cut happens in the near term rather than in the hypothetical future.

The focus on 10-year projections thus gives politicians a way to have their cake and eat it too. In any given bill or budget, they can continue spending at current levels and rates of increase for next couple years–thereby avoiding hard decisions and difficult political fights. And then they can put the “draconian” cuts in the out years. Over the full 10-year cycle, they can claim to balance the budget or reduce the deficit and pretend to be fiscally responsible.

But in reality, they’ve done nothing at all. And when it comes time to implement the hard cuts needed, well, it will be time for a new bill and a new 10-year analysis. Rinse. Repeat.

In fact, this is the tack taken in the ostensibly fiscally conservative AHCA bill passed by the House. Above we noted that the bill will cut (merely) $119 billion from the cumulative deficit over 10 years. However, the deficit reduction doesn’t even start until 2021–or year 4 (see page 35). Before that time, the bill would actually increase the deficit over baseline estimates.

This approach should not come as a surprise. The focus on 10-year projections helps Congress avoid making hard choices. Instead of encouraging long-term fiscal discipline, it just distracts us from the reckless decisions being made in the here and now.

If Congress had a sign like the neighborhood bar, it might say “Balanced budget in Year 7”. But alas, Year 7 never comes.

Noted Policy Wonk Donald Trump Declares GOP Healthcare Bill ‘Mean’

Behind closed doors, President Donald Trump described the House’s GOP healthcare bill as “mean”, according to a source with knowledge of the president’s thinking.*

The news broke at a critical time in the GOP’s efforts to pass legislation to radically transform the name of Obamacare. GOP leaders expressed concern and frustration that the president’s remarks could undermine their efforts.

However, Democrats and other healthcare experts were quick to tout Trump’s description. Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) response was typical:

Within Washington, DC, Trump has a well-deserved reputation as a serious policy wonk in several areas, especially healthcare. He knows the literature and the economics inside and out.

So if he’s saying this bill is mean, you can take that to the bank.

Other sources noted that Trump is usually very guarded and circumspect with respect to his views. “He doesn’t go off half-cocked,” one source told The Daily Face Palm. “If he takes a strong stance on something, whether in private or on Twitter, you know he thought it through for at least two, maybe three minutes.”

At press time, the GOP leadership was considering asking the Congressional Budget Office for an official determination on whether the healthcare reform was, in fact, mean.

*This a satirical post. While the underlying event is real, the quotes above are fictional.

With Bank Bailouts, Italy Secures Moral Hazard

Over the past weekend, two more Italian banks were forced to close due to insolvency.

As is often the case, bad loans were the cause of the downfall for both banks. They made too many risky bets on borrowers that didn’t pay off.

Banca Populare di Vicenza SpA and Veneto Banca SpA are the two banks that failed in this case. Their loans and deposits will be taken over by another bank, Intesa Sanpaolo SpA, for the grand total of 1 Euro. More specifically, Intesa is only acquiring the good assets. Meanwhile, the excessive losses on the bad loans will be absorbed by the Italian government, which is putting up $19 billion in support for the deal.

The end result is a good deal for Intesa, which acquires income-generating assets without meaningful risk. It’s also a great deal for the investors and creditors of the failed banks. In a true bankruptcy, they would have lost much or all of their money. But under the state-assisted sale to Intesa, these creditors and investors–who willingly took a risk–will be protected from loss.

The unequivocal loser is the Italian taxpayer, who will be forced to bail out two banks, even though the taxpayers themselves bear no responsibility for the failure and never volunteered to put their money at risk.

On its face, this is a perverse outcome. And even if we could ignore the plain immorality of taxing a random third-party (the taxpayer) to protect the interests of a few, there’s still another problem–the problem of moral hazard.

In economics, moral hazard refers to the idea that people tend to take more risks when they do not bear the full potential negative consequences.

So, when football helmets were adopted, players felt emboldened to use their head as a weapon–concussions became commonplace and the rules had to be changed. When seat belts were implemented, car drivers apparently felt safer, drove faster, and caused pedestrian fatalities to go up.

And when banks get bailed out, other bankers are encouraged to behave recklessly. After all, they aren’t on the hook if a risky loan doesn’t pay off; the taxpayer is.

It doesn’t have to work this way.

In fact, Europe implemented banking rules that were supposed to limit this problem. The new rules require a “bail-in”, in which investors and creditors would lose some of their own money before any government entity stepped in with additional funds. The rules have even been applied successfully once, in the recent failure of a Spanish bank name Banco Popular.

However, in this case, the authorities chose to ignore their rules and allow Italy to conduct a normal bailout.

The reason given for the exception was that the banks were sufficiently small and unimportant. But if anything, this should be an extra argument against bailouts. It’s strange to argue simultaneously that 1) a bank is too small to threaten the overall financial system and 2) it is vitally necessary for the government to rescue it and shield investors. One of those doesn’t fit.

Perhaps a more compelling explanation is that governments are scared of what might happen if bank investors and creditors really believe their assets are in jeopardy in a bank failure. Most likely, those investors would start asking more questions about the bank’s practices to evaluate the risk. The creditors might also demand higher interest rates to compensate for the risk or demand safer lending practices to protect themselves from a default.

These would be great outcomes. They’re the opposite of moral hazard behavior, and they promote more prudent choices in banking. But such a change in perception also risks a panic at the outset as investors adjust to the new reality. This is what politicians want to avoid–even if it means bigger problems later. And in the most recent case, the politicians prevailed. The taxpayers will suffer now, and likely, everyone will suffer more in the long run as a result.

When the Italian government opted to bail out the two latest banks, it didn’t just secure depositors. It also ensured the moral hazard problem remains alive and well in the financial system.