From the latest report of the Congressional Budget Office. HT to Greg Mankiw.

Robert Samuelson on the Stubborn Welfare State and the shifting priorities of the federal budget.

Finally, Nielson Media Research’s television ratings for the post-season college football games from this past season. HT to Wizard of Odds.

We all knew that it was just a matter of time before this would occur in Venezuela under Hugo Chavez’s dubious economic leadership.
But, as Ted Frank explains, how were we to know that Mississippi AG Jim Hood, plaintiff’s lawyer Dickie Scruggs and Senator Trent Lott would accomplish much the same thing in regard to insurance for the citizens of Mississippi? Or that AG Hood would take the preposterous position that the state can force State Farm Insurance Co. to continue to underwrite policies in the state (Larry Ribstein has more)?
Maybe Hood could persuade Chavez to underwrite some cheap insurance for Mississippi consumers?

About a year ago, this post noted the boondoggle status of Las Vegas’ then new $650 million, 4.4 mile monorail project. As is typical with such boondoggles, passage of time does not make the problem any better:

Donna Washington loves riding the Las Vegas Monorail, but not for a reason that would cheer its owners.
ìIn my town, the trains are always jam-packed, so itís nice to have a train car to myself here,î said Ms. Washington, 44, a Chicagoan vacationing here. ìI do wonder, though, where all the people are.î[. . .]
. . . ridership numbers for the Disney-inspired system, which stops at nine hotel-casinos and the Las Vegas Convention Center, are falling amid a lackluster marketing campaign, technical problems and revenues so far below projections that Wall Street fears that a default on its bonds could occur by the end of the decade.
December was the monorailís worst month, with 18,197 riders per day, far below the 53,000 predicted by studies used to sell the bonds to investors and to persuade public officials to give up public right of way. Despite a management shakeup in mid-2005 that purged the company of its founding executives, the systemís average ridership plunged 31 percent in 2006, to 19,219 per day.
The companyís new chief executive, Curtis L. Myles III, said that drop was somewhat anticipated after fares were raised in December 2005 to $5 a ride from $3. That move increased revenues by 4 percent, to $31.4 million for the year, still far short of the $44.9 million needed to break even. The total cost of the system per year is about $61 million; the monorail receives about $16 million in advertising revenues from companies like Sprint, which is about to start providing wireless Internet access on the trains and has a 15,000-square-foot store at the convention center stop.
Mr. Myles acknowledged in an interview that the companyís cash reserves, estimated by Fitch at about $89 million, would run dry by 2010 if revenues did not improve. To break even, he said, the monorail would need to increase ridership by about 50 percent.

And can you guess the Las Vegas Monorail Company’s proposed solution? Of course, double-down on the monorail bet — a $500 million expansion!
Read the entire article. And yes, a similar thing could happen here.

James Hamilton passes along Stanford University Professor John Taylor’s touching tribute to Milton Friedman, which includes this anecdote about Friedman’s participation in an entry level economics class:

[Professor Friedman] was always willing to be a guest lecturer in my Economics 1 course, speaking to hundreds of Stanford students. He would start off telling the undergraduates that two major things the government is involved in are a mess — education and drugs — and that would set off a lively round of questions with his memorable answers impressing both those on the left and the right.

Along those same lines, Professor Friedman would agree with this cogent this Jacob Sullum/Reason op-ed that cogently explores the dubious nature of the government’s Prohibition on internet gambling and the recent governmental assault on a legitimate foreign business, Neteller PLC.

Greg Mankiw passes along that PBS has announced that it will broadcast The Power of Choice, a documentary about Milton Friedman, on January 29th.
This promises to be a special show and one that should not be missed by anyone who is interested in the course of economics and capitalism in American society. The preview for the show is up on YouTube and can be viewed here.

CNN’s financial news anchor Lou Dobbs is arguably the highest-profile critic of the U.S. trade deficit, which demagogues often use as justification for increased regulation of free trade. Cafe Hayek’s Don Boudreaux has written extensively on how the U.S. trade deficit is really no big deal, and in this Christian Science Monitor op-ed, he takes on Dobbs over his complaints about the trade deficit. It’s not a fair fight:

Perhaps you miss this fact because you are misled by familiar trade jargon. In your book, “Exporting America,” in your columns, and on your television show you complain vigorously and often about America’s trade deficit. You call it “staggering,” and wonder how long America can continue to run such deficits.
Admittedly, the word “deficit” sounds ominous. In fact, though, America’s trade deficit is evidence of its economic vigor and promise. Here’s why:
When Americans buy foreign-made goods and services, foreigners earn dollars. The only way America would run no trade deficit is if foreigners spent all of these dollars buying goods and services from Americans. Instead, though, foreigners invest some of their dollars in America. They buy American corporate stock, they build their own factories and retail outlets in the US, they lend dollars to Uncle Sam, and they hold some dollars in reserve as cash.
Aren’t you proud that so many people the world over eagerly invest their hard-earned wealth in America?
As an American, I’m proud and optimistic. Foreigners invest in the US so readily because its economy is so strong. And even better, these investments strengthen the economy by creating more capital for American workers. These investments raise workers’ productivity and wages.
Remember: A trade deficit is not synonymous with debt.
I’m writing this letter on a new Sony computer that I bought with cash. I owe Sony nothing. If Sony holds the dollars it earned from this sale, or if it uses these dollars to buy stock in General Electric or land in Arizona – that is, as long as Sony invests its dollars in America in ways other than lending it to Americans – the US trade deficit rises without raising Americans’ indebtedness.
Americans go more deeply into debt to foreigners only when Americans borrow money from foreigners. Uncle Sam, of course, borrows a lot of money, from both Americans and from non-Americans. I share your concern about the reckless spending and borrowing practiced by politicians in Washington.
Foreigners, however, are not to blame for this recklessness. Indeed, I’m grateful that foreigners stand ready to help us pay the cost of our overblown government. Fortunately, Washington’s spending binges are not serious enough to cripple America’s entrepreneurial economy. If they were, foreigners would refuse to invest here.
If you’re still skeptical that America’s trade deficit is no cause for concern, perhaps you’ll be persuaded by Adam Smith, who wrote that “Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade.”
Smith correctly understood that with free trade, the economy becomes larger than any one nation – a fact that brings more human creativity, more savings, more capital, more specialization, more opportunity, more competition, and a higher standard of living to all those who can freely trade.