Michael Hainey at GQ asked Marco Rubio a “gotcha” question:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

The problem isn’t with Rubio, exactly. I don’t believe that he’s actually mystified. The problem is with a political constituency that regards the answer as controversial or as an affront that would cause them to withdraw their support.

The answer is only a mystery if you insist on it being so. Human ingenuity has developed methods of thinking and tools for ascertaining the age of the earth. The earth is 4.54 billion years old. Not 6,000. That the fact doesn’t comport with the mythology of bronze age shepherds shouldn’t pose a significant problem for a major 21st century political figure in the strongest country on the planet. And, yet, it does.

I’m not pretending to be a policy wonk on health issues, just regurgitating what I read from more informed people. Some key rule proposals under Obamacare have been released.

An important one has to do with premium protection and sets criteria and boundaries within which insurers can adjust premiums. Most importantly is that the insurance is available to all comers who can pay these premiums — no denials for pre-existing conditions or denial of renewals for people who get sick. This requires a broadening of the insurance pool — the entire point of insurance is for the healthy to subsidize the sick. For more sick people, you need more healthy people (or else higher prices among the healthy people). That’s the reason for the mandate.

One of the rules would limit premium variations to 1) age; 2) tobacco use within limits, 3) family size, and 4) geography.

The factors are, with respect to a particular plan or coverage: (1) whether the plan or coverage applies to an individual or family; (2) rating area; (3) age, limited to a variation of 3:1 for adults; and (4) tobacco use, limited to a variation of 1.5:1. All other rating factors are prohibited. Thus, PHS Act section 2701 effectively prohibits several factors currently in use today, such as health status, claims experience, gender, industry, occupation, and duration of coverage, among others. Other factors that might be considered for rating purposes, such as eligibility for tax credits, prior source of coverage, and credit worthiness, also are prohibited.

Proposed rule at p. 22. A footnote says that the variations are multiplicative — for example, an old smoker could have a premium 4.5 times the base rate.

I think this kind of thing is a move in the right direction. Generally, I think we should either let people die if they don’t have enough money or provide universal coverage. A hybrid of those options tends to gravitate toward the worst features of both.

Today is the 149th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s delivery of the Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The Evansville Courier Press has an editorial noting with approval that a new stretch of I-69 opens today from Evansville to Crane — about 20 miles short of Bloomington.

There are a number of reasons to be critical about this development: the stretch from Bloomington to Indianapolis won’t be financed soon, if ever; what has been built was financed by selling off the Toll Road in Northern Indiana for the next 7 decades; by not using existing roads, the route has an unnecessary environmental impact. Interstates generally have led to decline of towns around other highways, have represented a policy choice to subsidize automobile travel over other kinds of transportation, and have often been developed in a way that is unmindful of the communities through which they pass.

Still, this seems like something of a big deal. Evansville is right that it’s cut off from the rest of Indiana. I, for one, have never been there because, without business taking me directly to the city, travel doesn’t take me past the city. Also, whereas once we as a country were prodigious road builders, now we seem to struggle just to maintain the ones we have. It’s nice to see us actually building something from time to time.

Sheila Kennedy’s recent blog post about the demise of the Twinkie being primarily a function of changing snack food preferences and increased awareness of health consequences brought to mind a favorite passage from Neal Stephenson’s “Reamde”:

Having now lived for a few decades in parts of the United States and Canada where cooking was treated quite seriously, and having actually employed professional chefs, he was fascinated by the midwestern/middle American phenomenon of recombinant cuisine. Rice Krispie Treats being a prototypical example in that they were made by repurposing other foods that had already been prepared (to wit, breakfast cereal and marshmallows). And of course any recipe that called for a can of cream of mushroom soup fell into the same category. The unifying principle behind all recombinant cuisine seemed to be indifference, if not outright hostility, to the use of anything that a coastal foodie would define as an ingredient.

The food-as-culture-war thing has been popping up in various ways recently. Papa Johns and Chik-Fil-A are rallying points to culture warriors who seek to thwart the menace of liberalism. That they pick these places while fighting against universalizing access to health care is especially notable. It’s as if they are demanding, even relishing, the right to go from fat to sick to bankrupt. This is somewhat reminiscent of the climate change deniers who demand that FEMA be defunded.

As for the Twinkies, if you can’t make money selling Americans tubes of processed cream filling, what hope is there for any venture, really?

In a Facebook discussion, Abdul suggested that the Tea Party was at war with the Libertarians, blaming them the Libertarians for Electoral defeat. Some in the discussion suggested that the Tea Party had forgotten its libertarian roots.

I’m not sure how libertarian the Tea Party ever was. The problem was, even from the beginning, with taking money from “us” and giving it to “them.” Remember Santelli’s Rant?

Why don’t you put up a web site to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages, or would we like to, at least, buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road, and reward people that could carry the water, instead of drink(ing) the water.

In his case, it was the winners versus “the losers.” “Us versus Them” was always, in my mind, the motivating force of the Tea Party. Government regulations that sent money to “Us” was o.k. (That’s why, for example, Medicare always needed defending instead of defunding.) Now, defining the “Us” and defining the “Them” can be an interesting debate, but almost never a pretty one.

Maureen Groppe, writing for Gannett has a good article entitled Income inequality study finds gap widening in Indiana. Incomes for Indiana’s upper and middle classes did not grow over the past 30 years as much as they did for the nation generally. And, during that time, Indiana was one of seven states where the average income of the bottom quintile actually fell.

The average income for the bottom fifth of Hoosier households declined almost 7 percent ($1,378) since the late 1970s. Average income for the top fifth grew 57 percent ($53,906). The average income of the middle fifth grew 22 percent ($10,567).

One source cites the “skills gap” (about which, see) and the decline in manufacturing jobs. The departure of manufacturing jobs no doubt contributes significantly to the drag on Hoosier incomes, particularly at the bottom. It used to be, I gather, that if you had a basic education and followed some basic rules about punctuality and working diligently at your assigned task, you could do o.k. by yourself and your family. Now, I think we have a very difficult time articulating precisely what a person should learn in order to earn a stable, family-sustaining income. So, it’s not terribly surprising if people come up short on their education.

Our tax policy isn’t exactly helping either. We got rid of inventory taxes, capped property taxes and raised sales taxes. We are eliminating the inheritance tax and reduced the corporate income tax. This is particularly awesome if you are heir to a corporation that owns real estate and inventory. Doesn’t do as much for you if you are a wage earning renter that buys stuff.

A post by Mike Kole reminded me of the thoughts of Cass Sunstein in his 2001 book, Republic.com.

I haven’t read it, but reports say that Sunstein’s central thesis is that the Internet will weaken democracy “because it allows different groups to avoid exposure to one another as they gather in increasingly segregated communities, making recognition of other points of view or common ground decreasingly likely.” (From the Splinternet/Cyberbalkanization entry of Wikipedia).

This isn’t new, of course, and it’s not unique to the Internet. As I mentioned recently elsewhere, I know some older political types who recall being shocked by the Nixon landslide because “everyone they knew voted for McGovern.” And, before rapid global communications, information was pretty effectively segregated by geography. But, I suppose the Internet and the customization available allows folks to wrap the cocoon even tighter than before.

Interesting post at BoingBoing (h/t ZW) entitled Rolling Jubilee: Occupy raising money to buy up, and wipe out, debts.

The idea of the Rolling Jubilee is that the Occupy Wall Street types will take contributions and use them to buy up distressed debt at fire sale prices and forgive the debts that were bought. So, they’re stepping into the shoes of the debt buyers — who typically buy distressed debts at low prices and then hound debtors for fun and profit.

It’s a nice gesture and undoubtedly nice for the debtors who are relieved of the debt. But, my guess it will be something like spitting in the ocean.

I propose we revert tax rates back to Clinton era levels, cut military spending 10%, cut farm subsidies 20%, get out of Afghanistan, raise Social Security eligibility by two years for those under 50, and eliminate the income cap on payroll taxes.

How we doing on the deficit? Other ideas?