The (un)Prescribed Life: Kenyon Students Medicating Heavily, with Questionable Legitimacy

Overheard at Kenyon:

Student 1: Wait, where do you get your Adderall from?

Student 2: Chelsea, but she needs a refill soon. It’s cool, I have another hookup.

Every Kenyon student has heard conversations like this one; under-the-table Adderall (or other study drug) use has been standard practice in academia for a long time. But no one is ever sure if the stories they hear are representative or exceptional. How many Kenyon students are actually turning to Adderall to get through their classes?

I, along with psychology major Joshua Samuels, just completed a study in an attempt to quantify this anecdotal evidence that study drug use, among other forms of self-medication, are increasingly commonplace and socially acceptable as part of our college experience. Our survey was conducted online from Monday, April 22nd through Monday, April 29th and received responses from 374 students, nearly a quarter of Kenyon’s student body. We received levels of responses from various demographic groups (class standing, gender, race, etc.) that were in line with Kenyon’s student composition; given the level and nature of responses, we can be reasonably confident that our results paint a relatively accurate picture of Kenyon students’ behavior.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

In a recent New York Times article, it was reported that eleven percent of American children, including nearly twenty percent of high school boys, are diagnosed with ADHD. Moreover, two thirds of those who receive a diagnosis also receive a prescription for a stimulant, such as Ritalin or Adderall, in an attempt to treat the disorder’s symptoms.

And Kenyon is no exception. In our study, 11.7 percent of Kenyon students reported having a prescription for ADD/ADHD medication.

But some in the psychology community are becoming increasingly skeptical that such high levels of diagnoses are either necessary or beneficial. And given the behaviors of those who do have a prescription, their skepticism may be warranted. Only 30.5 percent of Kenyon students with a prescription for ADHD medication reported taking their medication on time; a majority reported taking their medication only up to half of the times they were supposed to and students were more likely to completely ignore their medication than to take it on schedule:

Clearly, a significant percentage of students who have medication prescribed to them consider themselves perfectly able to function day-to-day without the use of their medication. And when a large number of pills are prescribed and not taken, a surplus is created. This surplus, as you can probably imagine, is used to spur academic performance:

To put these charts in perspective, if you line up ten Kenyon students, one of them will have a prescription for ADD/ADHD medication, which they probably won’t need, and at least two others who don’t have a prescription will have used such medication for the sole purpose of writing a paper or studying for/taking a test.

While an imperfect comparison, these findings are in line with prior literature, mentioned in the Times article, which pegs the percentage of ADD/ADHD medication that goes to non-prescribed friends at about 30 percent.

ADHD has historically been estimated to affect between three and seven percent of children, but, as pediatric neurologist William Graf notes:

Mild symptoms are being diagnosed so readily, which goes well beyond the disorder and beyond the zone of ambiguity to pure enhancement of children who are otherwise healthy.

And while current levels of diagnoses are already at record highs, the number is only expected to increase. As the Times article says:

…even more teenagers are likely to be prescribed medication in the near future because the American Psychiatric Association plans to change the definition of A.D.H.D. to allow more people to receive the diagnosis and treatment.

…The final wording has not been released, but most proposed changes would lead to higher rates of diagnosis: the requirement that symptoms appeared before age 12 rather than 7; illustrations, like repeatedly losing one’s cellphone or losing focus during paperwork, that emphasize that A.D.H.D. is not just a young child’s disorder; and the requirement that symptoms merely “impact” daily activities, rather than cause “impairment.”

There is no official test used to diagnose ADHD; psychiatrists evaluate patients based on extensive conversation with the patient, their parents and teachers. It is also common practice for doctors to allow their patients to “set their own dosage” by prescribing increasingly high levels of medication until the patient finds one that “feels right.”

Given the choice, many psychiatrists would rather wrongly diagnose someone with ADD or ADHD than to turn a patient away when they really do have a disorder. While this thinking is certainly not without merit, it opens the door for pharmaceutical companies, parents and patients to push for diagnoses that are increasingly unwarranted.

Depression

While self-reports of ADD/ADHD prescriptions were high, 23.4 percent of respondents reported having a prescription for an anti-depressant, twice the rate of ADD/ADHD prescriptions.

The Center for Disease Control estimates that depression rates for Americans over the age of twelve is around eight percent.

As seems to be the case with ADD/ADHD, it could be that depression is heavily over-diagnosed. After all, one in four is an awfully high proportion for any psychological disorder, almost high enough to call the use of the word “disorder” into question. Like the third grader who doesn’t want to do their homework and winds up with a prescription for Ritalin, there’s a fine line between having an awkward phase in high school and having a persistent clinical disorder – a line that probably isn’t crossed as often as we think it is.

In conjunction with the findings related to ADD/ADHD medication, these numbers on anti-depressants could speak further to the idea that we are becoming increasingly reliant on pills and less reliant on each other when dealing with emotional stress/anxiety/hardship. While there’s no doubt that in many cases medication is, at least temporarily, necessary and does a lot of good, we may find it all-too-convenient to get a prescription instead of investing time in talking out our issues.

These sentiments aren’t new to the psychiatry community. University of New South Wales, Australia Professor Gordon Parker has spearheaded the growing concern that depression is being used to describe normal feelings of sadness, at the behest of pharmaceutical companies that have a vested interest in using depression as a “catch-all” illness. As the Guardian wrote:

[Professor Parker] said the drugs were being marketed beyond their “true utility” in cases in which people were unhappy rather than clinically depressed.

…the “over-diagnosis” of depression began in the early 80s, when the diagnostic threshold for minor mood disorders was lowered.

His 15-year study of 242 teachers found that more than three-quarters met the current criteria for depression.

Prescription anti-depressants are taken more regularly, and more responsibly, than ADD/ADHD medication. 59.8 percent of respondents with a prescription for anti-depressants take their medication on time; 19.6 percent reported never taking them:

Furthermore, only 6 percent of respondents who did not have a prescription for anti-depressants reported taking them for the purpose of coping with their environment. At Kenyon, using “happy pills” is practically nonexistent compared to the use of study drugs.

Anxiety

While our survey didn’t dive as deep into the use of anti-anxiety drugs as it could have, one interesting finding was that a higher percentage of respondents without a prescription for such drugs reported having taken them (16.0) than the percentage of respondents who reported having a prescription (12.7). Furthermore, students with a prescription for an anti-anxiety drug were even more likely to never take their medication (40 percent) than students with a prescription for ADD/ADHD medication (32.2 percent).

Perceptions

Not only are Kenyon students’ self-medicating behaviors high in volume, they’re freely discussed to the point at which Kenyon students are uncannily accurate in estimating the extent to which their peers are engaging in them. When asked what percentage of the student body they thought had used study drugs, the average estimate was 33.45 percent (actual percentage: 34). When asked to estimate the percentage of Kenyon students who take anti-depressants, the average prediction was 28.66 percent (actual: 23.4).

Perhaps the fact that study drug use is so candidly discussed is the reason that when respondents were asked to rate their favorability towards people who engaged in various activities, study drug use was barely rated unfavorably (3.41 on a scale of 1-7, with 1 being totally unfavorable, 4 being neutral and 7 being totally favorable), and was rated less unfavorably than cigarette smoking (3.25):

We are past the point at which everyone simply knows of someone who abuses study drugs, we are at a point at which everyone has a few friends who do it and find it socially acceptable to talk about it openly.

Perhaps the most shocking result of our study is that the results aren’t all that shocking. The volume, knowledge and acceptance of study drugs and anti-depressants on our campus should lead us to take a long, hard look at ourselves. Can we call ourselves a healthy community when one in three of us are taking academic performance-enhancers and one in four of us are depressed? Do we really need these drugs?

It would seem that the answer to both of these questions is: no.

For a more comprehensive look at the results of this study or to request its data, please email Jon Green at greenj@kenyon.edu, Joshua Samuels at samuelsj@kenyon.edu or the Kenyon Observer at tko@kenyon.edu.

5 Reasons Why Marco Rubio Won’t Win in 2016

The Kenyon Observer welcomes back former contributor Jacob Smith ’12, who is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This post originally appeared on Margin of Error on Tuesday, February 12th, 2013. The original article can be found here.

This evening, a strong contender for the Republican nomination in 2016 will give a response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address. His Name is Rand Paul.

To some, this statement may seem surprising; after all the media has already crowded Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) the GOP frontrunner for 2016. Rubio appears on this week’s cover of Time Magazine as the “Republican Savior” and has also been crowned the new leader of the GOP by the Washington Post’s Chris Cilizza. However, for the five reasons I explain below, Rubio faces long odds at winning the Republican nomination in 2016, much less the White House.

This piece will focus on why Rubio is an unlikely nominee in 2016, but will also briefly contend that another “outsider” such as Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) would have a better chance at overcoming past trends and winning the GOP nomination than Rubio (although neither candidate would have much chance of winning the general election). (Note: Harry Enten makes a similar argument as to why Mr. Rubio won’t be elected president in 2016 here.)

The Primaries:

  • He’s too liberal (on immigration): As I will explain below under “he’s too conservative,” Marco Rubio would likely be the most conservative nominee since Barry Goldwater in 1964. However, Rubio is too liberal (or at least perceived as too liberal) on the exact wrong issue for a Republican candidate: immigration. Political observers will remember that Mitt Romney, while viewed as the “moderate” candidate on many issues in the 2012 primary field, ran hard right on immigration. Romney targeted primary opponents Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) and ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) as too soft on immigration, while he made statements about “self-deportation.”Immigration’s importance as an issue in the Republican primary looms large due to the placement of Iowa as the first contest during the primaries. Home to anti-illegal immigration crusader Rep. Steve King (R-IA), the Republican caucuses are a hotbed for the anti-immigration sentiments. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), having just supported a failed immigration reform effort, came in fourth place in the Iowa Caucuses in 2008. While the fate of the current effort to reform immigration is unknown at this time, whatever happens bodes ill for Rubio in Iowa. In the eyes of the anti-immigration activists, either 1) he will be the candidate who gave 11 million illegals amnesty or 2) it will be necessary to defeat him so he cannot enact amnesty if he becomes president. It is a lose, lose situation for Rubio. And, as I explain below, Rubio cannot fall back on New Hampshire to restart his campaign like John McCain did in 2008.
  • The primary schedule is stacked against him: As Hillary Clinton would tell you, order matters when it comes to the primary schedule. As I discussed above, Iowa is a poor fit for Rubio. However, New Hampshire is not much better for the junior senator from Florida. In the three most recent contested GOP primaries in the Granite State, New Hampshire went for the more centrist candidate on the ballot (McCain, McCain, Romney), and before that went for an anti-free trade, anti-immigration populist in a divided field (Pat Buchanan). Rubio fits neither of these profiles particularly well.In addition, both of the first two primary states are not particularly diverse, with both ranking among the top ten whitest states nationwide. While certainly not impossible to overcome (see President Obama), Rubio would have to find a way to appeal to an electorate that is almost 100 percent white and not favorable towards immigration.Should Rubio make it to South Carolina, he would face additional challenges. Since the days of Republican operative Lee Atwater, South Carolina has been known for its aggressive, nasty politics. Even politicians without a whiff of scandal can be brought down by the rough-and-tumble politics of the Palmetto State. And, as I detail in the next section, Rubio’s record has far more than a whiff of scandal. While Nevada would present a more favorable electorate than other early states, the difficulties Rubio would face in the other three early contests would overshadow a win in the Nevada caucuses.Rubio would be expected to easily win the next state, his home state of Florida; any other outcome would be viewed as a failure. Then, until Super Tuesday, the primary process is mostly dominated by small caucus states that are similar in demographics to Iowa. In other words, the early primary process offers two sorts of states for Rubio: expected winners (Florida) and states that present considerable difficulties (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina). It would be hard for Rubio to prove himself as a viable candidate early unless he somehow was able to win one of these difficult early states.
  • He will face too many allegations of corruption/scandal: As mentioned above, South Carolina has a reputation for dirty politics; even politicians with clean records (such as John McCain) can see their reputations sullied in this state. Among the scandals that have dogged Rubio recently are fines for campaign finance violations in his 2010 Senate race, having to pay back the Florida GOP after using the state party credit card for personal expenses such as remodeling his home, giving incorrect information about when his family emigrated from Cuba, and having close ties to scandal-ridden former Congressman David Rivera (R-FL). Also, in the mode of former Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards (D-NC) , Rubio’s charges to the state party credit card seemingly include a $134 haircut (something Rubio disputes). Each of the items listed above (no matter their veracity) could make a good attack ad in either a primary or a general election. And many of them will become part of attacks (perhaps from Super PACs) in South Carolina, if not before. Is it any wonder why Mitt Romney passed on Rubio as his VP nominee!?!
  • It’s not his turn: Marco Rubio would be a perfect Democratic primary candidate: young, relatively inexperienced, pretty new on the scene. Unfortunately for him, he would be running in the Republican primary. Every Republican nominee since 1964 save one (George W. Bush) had run for President before and lost. And Bush’s father, as we all know, was a candidate for president in 1980 before being elected president in 1988.This pattern is, of course, more illustrative than deterministic, but it says a lot about Republicans as people. Overall, the party is characterized by being orderly and risk averse in picking their nominees; in other words, Republicans are conservative. While the party had some difficulties in picking Senate candidates recently (see, for example Todd Akin), they still selected Mitt Romney for President despite the presence of Tea Party activists throughout the process.If the party were to buck this trend, they would be far more likely to go with someone in the mold of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) than with Rubio. Paul does not face the problem of being too liberal on immigration for the base and the structure of primaries is far better for him. Three of his dad’s (Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)) best states in 2008 and 2012 were Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. While Republicans may well go with a “safe” pick like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL), Paul (much more than Rubio) has the potential to instigate a break with the past for the GOP.

The General Election:

  • He’s too conservative: If Rubio were to somehow make it through the primaries, he would be ill-placed to win in November. In addition to the vulnerabilities relating to allegations of corruption/scandal listed above, Rubio is far too conservative to become president. According to DW-Nominate’s ideology scores (which run from -1 for most liberal to 1 for most conservative), Rubio has a score of 0.57, placing him as the seventh most conservative member of the Senate.To place this in context, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has a DW-Nominate score of 0.595, just barely to the right of Rubio. While some like to compare Rubio to President Barack Obama, then-Senator Obama’s DW-Nominate Score was  -0.373 as he ran for president, almost 0.2 units closer to the center than Rubio’s score of 0.57. Other recent senators who have run for president have had similarly ideological DW-Nominate scores to President Obama, with John Kerry (D-MA) having a score of -0.386, Bob Dole (R-KS) having a score of  0.338, and  John McCain having a score of 0.38.Rubio has cast a number of conservative votes since being in the Senate, including opposing aid for Hurricane Sandy victims, opposing the fiscal cliff deal, and opposing extension of the payroll tax cut in 2011. These votes and others give Rubio a DW-Nominate score that would likely make him the most conservative nominee since “Mr. Conservative” Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), who had a DW-Nominate score 0.668 when he ran for president. Of course, Goldwater went on to be crushed by Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election as Democrats won a two-thirds majority in Congress. Rubio is roughly as conservative as George McGovern (D-SD) was liberal; McGovern’s -0.568 is almost the mirror image of Rubio’s 0.57. McGovern lost 49 out of 50 states in an epic defeat in the 1972 election.

As there is no indication that America is lurching to the right (indeed, the opposite may be true), it seems unlikely America would elect its most conservative (and indeed most ideologically extreme) president in modern history in 2016. Of course, Rubio likely will not even make it past the considerable obstacles he faces in the primaries. So while Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) may be the media’s flavor of the month, his (non-existent) candidacy may well have reached its high point on February 12, 2013, as he delivers the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address.

“España es diferente.” Spain is different indeed.

Today’s international post will focus on two big stories, from the Spanish perspective.

First of all, Catalunya’s legislature, the Generalitat, approved a “Declaration of Sovereignty” today. The measure was made the number one issue in Catalunya’s September elections, in which the nationalist-centrist party CiU won the majority of seats, but not enough to form a government alone. As such they sought and agreed to a deal with the second largest party, the leftist republican party of Catalunya (ERC), to from a government. This was in a sense a huge upset, because CiU had been expected to win the election handily given that sovereignty the key issue.

Both CiU and ERC, with the support of the Catalan green party, voted in favor of the declaration. In opposition were the Spanish Socialist Workers party (PSOE, a centre-left party a whose name is actually more bark than bite) and the People’s Party (the centre-right party governing Spain).  This represented an even bigger upset, as both the PSOE and PP have been the dominant parties in Spain’s politics starting in 1982, shortly after the end of the Franco era. Although they were expected to lose this battle, this declaration has surely sent a blow to Spain’s rigidly bipartisan system.

The issue of Catalan sovereignty has become salient as a result of the economic crisis, which has severely battered the Spanish state. Five years of austerity have done nothing to improve itsailing economy, which depended largely on the housing industry before that bubble’s burst in 2008. Prior to the housing and financial crisis, Spain’s government spending and borrowing was actually under control. The issue of sovereignty comes into play because Catalunya gives far more in taxes to the Spanish federal government than the federal government gives back, yet they have been forced to cut spending at the behest of the federal government. (Much like California, which has similarly faced budget crises).

For now anyway, the declaration is just that. Their is no independent Catalunya, at least not yet. The Generalitat has simply decided “to initiate the process of self-determination.” 

In other news today, Israel’s right wing leader Benjamin Netanyahu did not win reelection as handily as was expected. Which was, given the forecast before the election, cause enough for jubilation itself (at least for some). In any event, what it means is that Netanyahu’s Likud Party may have to form a coalition with other parties closer toward the center and center-left. As reporters for Madrid’s newspaper El País quippied, Netanyahu    ”[may have] won, but he did not convince,” unabashedly referencing the famous utterance by Spanish writer Miguel de Unamuno in response to one of Franco’s generals, José Millán Astray.

Spain is different indeed. And Catalunya even more so.

The Briefing: Dead Captives, Dead Ideas, and Boring Speeches

Business Insider: Algeria Under Fire For Reckless Mission To Free Hostages

“The kidnappers said 34 captives had died in the assault, but this was impossible to confirm. They told Mauritanian news agency ANI they would “kill all the hostages if the Algerian forces succeed in entering the complex.”

The Economist: Has the Ideas Machine Broken Down?

“To those fortunate enough to benefit from the best that the world has to offer, the fact that it offers no more can disappoint. As Mr Thiel and his colleagues at the Founders Fund, a venture-capital company, put it: “We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.” A world where all can use Twitter but hardly any can commute by air is less impressive than the futures dreamed of in the past.”

The Chronicle: The Delights of Disgust

“The same things that excite our desire most—the naked bodies of other humans, the bright red shell of a boiled lobster, a cigarette glowing in an ashtray—are the things that always, simultaneously, threaten to excite our revulsion.”

The New Republic: A Short History of Meaningless Inauguration Speeches

“Nearly every President declares that God shares those principles and is rooting for us to apply them, from now to perpetuity. “His divine blessing,” claimed Washington, was “conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.” You can’t really go wrong with a bland pronouncement like that.”

The Briefing: Earmarks, Hastert Rule, Obama’s Gun Control Plan, Michele Bachmann

Businessweek: Earmarks: The Reluctant Case for Ending the Ban

Political hacks used to say pork was the political grease that lubricated legislative deals. Only now do we see how true that was. Would it really be so terrible to reintroduce some congressionally sanctioned bribery? That would let members lay claim to the odd million in the interest of striking a deal worth much more.

Chicago Tribune: Obama’s sweeping gun control agenda: Assault weapons ban, mandatory background checks

He also announced 23 steps he intends to take immediately without congressional approval. These include improving the existing system for background checks, lifting the ban on federal research on gun violence, putting more counselors and “resource officers” in schools and better access to mental health services.

Talking Points Memo: Teachers Union Explains Why It Supports Obama’s Guns In Schools Plan But Not NRA’s

“The NRA proposed arming educators and volunteer security guards and private security personnel. The school resource officer program is an actual program that was funded a number of years ago by Joe Biden’s bill to put law enforcement — actual police offers — in schools after they’ve received adequate training.”

Minneapolis Star-Tribune: Ex-Bachmann aide alleges campaign finance violations

The filing follows…allegations last week that the Bachmann campaign has withheld payments to staffers who refused to sign confidentiality agreements.

Waldron, formerly Bachmann’s national field coordinator, is accusing the campaign of improperly dipping into money from MichelePAC to pay longtime fundraising consultant Guy Short for presidential campaign work he performed in the critical final weeks ahead of Iowa’s caucuses last year.

The Cloakroom: Did Democrats finally find a way to bypass House Republicans?

For the second time in two weeks, the House passed legislation by violating the so-called “Hastert rule,” which states that any bill brought to a vote on the House floor must be supported by a majority of the majority party…

…the House passed a bill to aid Hurricane Sandy relief efforts by a 241 to 180 vote. But as First Read notes, “the real story is the vote breakdown: Only 49 Republicans voted for the measure — so just 20 percent of the caucus — while a whopping 179 Republicans voted against the measure.

The Briefing: Bloodshed in Syria, Mali, and Iraq; Gun Control in New York and the Nation

The Atlantic: State Department Believes Assad Used Chemical Weapons on Syrian People

“In a leak that could signal a crossing of President Obama’s “red line” on the increasingly deadly conflict in Syria, the State Department has investigated and concluded that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his military forces used poison gas in a deadly attack on the city of Homs last month”

The Washington Post: French Triple Troops in Mali, Prepare for Massive Land Assault

“France plunged headfirst into the conflict in its former colony last week, bombarding the insurgents’ training camps, arms depots and safe houses in an effort to shatter the Islamist domination of a region many fear could become a launching pad for terrorist attacks on the West and a magnet for extremists from around the world.”

The Times of India: 27 dead, over 220 injured in Iraq bomb attacks

“Both explosions inflicted massive destruction,” said police Brigadier General Sarhad Qader. “Our forces are still trying to remove corpses from the rubble (of the first attack).”

The New York Times: Obama Willing to Use Executive Orders on Guns

“By proposing to use the independent power of his office, Mr. Obama is inviting political attacks by gun owners who have already expressed fear that he will abuse that authority to restrict their rights.”

The New Jersey Star-Ledger: New York Passes Nation’s Toughest Gun Control Law

“Common sense can win,” [New York Governor Andrew] Cuomo said. “You can overpower the extremists with intelligence and with reason and with common sense.”

The Telegraph: The UK Moves to Withdraw Ban on Insults

“Six years ago police tried to prosecute Oxford student Sam Brown after he said to a mounted officer: “Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?”

The Briefing: Inside Obama’s Presidency, Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia and Professions Ranked by Employment

PBS Frontline and Longreads: Inside Obama’s Presidency

“FRONTLINE and Longreads have partnered up to cull the best long-form reporting and reading on President Obama’s first term, organized below by category for your reading pleasure.

The New York Times: Morsi’s Slurs Against Jews Stir Concern 

“We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews,” Mr. Morsi declared. Egyptian children “must feed on hatred; hatred must continue,” he said. “The hatred must go on for God and as a form of worshiping him.”

The New York Times: A Trail of Bullet Casings Leads From Africa’s Wars Back to Iran

“Within two years other researchers were finding identical cartridges circulating through the ethnic violence in Darfur. Similar ammunition then turned up in 2009 in a stadium in Conakry, Guinea, where soldiers had fired on antigovernment protesters, killing more than 150.”

The Atlantic: The Real Cuban Missile Crisis

“Kennedy and his civilian advisers understood that the missiles in Cuba did not alter the strategic nuclear balance.”

al-Arabiya: Breakthrough in Saudi Arabia: women allowed in parliament.

“The decision is good but women issues are still hanging,” said Wajeha al-Hawidar, a prominent Saudi female activist. ‘For normal women, there are so many laws and measures that must be suspended or amended for woman to be dealt with as grown-ups and adults, without a mandate from guardians.”

Wall Street Journal: Unemployment Rates by Profession

“The U.S. unemployment rate is 7.8%, but that varies widely by profession.” [It's a good day to be a bio-medical engineer, and a bad one for forest conservation workers. See how you stack up.]

The Briefing: Hagel, Immigration, Defense Cuts, Californian Budgets

National Memo: Five Republicans Who Were for Hagel Before they Were Against Him

Although Hagel served two terms as a Republican senator from Nebraska, his decision to join the Obama administration “severed his ties with the Republican Party,” as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) put it.

New York Times: Obama Will Seek Immigration Path in One Fast Push

Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats will propose the changes in one comprehensive bill, the officials said, resisting efforts by some Republicans to break the overhaul into smaller pieces — separately addressing young illegal immigrants, migrant farmworkers or highly skilled foreigners — which might be easier for reluctant members of their party to accept.

FOX News: Looming Defense Cuts had Uneasy Contractors Leaving Industry Long Before Budget Crisis

The announcement that the Pentagon would scale back defense contracting amid massive budget cuts was unsettling but expected news for some contractors who have already left the industry amid the uncertainty that has loomed over them for nearly 18 months.

DailyKos: California: Back in the Black with Progressive Governance

…we could only get started on the right track once…Democrats were allowed to actually govern the state by making the wealthy pay their fair share and eliminating the structural roadblocks that allowed a heartless minority to dictate the state’s fiscal terms.

The Secret Service Non-Scandal

Timothy Noah’s article in the New Republic today called into question the level of outrage over allegations that Secret Service agents solicited prostitutes on their recent visit to Colombia ahead of the Summit of the Americas. While certainly embarrassing, he argues that congressional hearings and the media frenzy are unwarranted, and I agree. Continue reading