After listening to Mitt Romney's victory speech last night, Paul Waldman channels one of my pet peeves:

Can we just put aside the "only in America" schtick?....Let's be honest about this. America does indeed offer enormous opportunities for all kinds of people, despite our huge and growing inequality. The attraction it has always held for immigrants made this country what it is. For a long time, the kinds of opportunities available here were a rarity among nations, when in so many places class lines were much more rigid. But that's not true anymore. There are lots of places where somebody can come from modest circumstances and achieve wealth and/or power.

This whole routine usually just makes me laugh. To listen to America's politicians, you'd think that we live in the only country in the world where you can listen to whatever music you want, work in whatever job you want, eat whatever food you want, go to a hospital whenever you get sick, root for any sports team you want to, and elect the nitwit of your choice to high office. What really gets me, though, is how often this isn't just a mindless trope, but based instead on the apparent belief that Western Europe is some kind of impoverished, dystopian hellhole filled with sallow-faced drones who live lives of misery and angst.

Like most pet peeves, this one is basically innocuous, just a lazy way of demonstrating that you think America is great. No harm done, really. But it does grate now and then.

It's spring, so here's a picture of a blooming yellow rose from our garden. I don't really need an excuse to post this, do I?

And speaking of yellow roses, did you know that most of Emily Dickinson's poems can be sung to the tune of "The Yellow Rose of Texas"? It's true! Go ahead and give it a try.

We're probably all tired of arguments about whether the individual mandate is constitutional, right? I mean, the arguments have been made and someone on the Supreme Court is already busily at work writing a majority opinion telling us whether it is or isn't. But Andrew Sprung hasn't given up talking about it, and today he riffs off a song that contains the line, "But the car that you are driving doesn't really belong to you." And that reminds me of something.

Andrew uses this to segue into a discussion of the nature of insurance mandates, but I've long thought that cars can teach us a different lesson about the power of the federal government to make us buy things even if we don't want them. When I bought my last car, for example, I was forced by federal law to also buy seat belts and air bags — and as far as I know, no court has ever suggested the federal government lacks this power. Why?

Technically, of course, the government isn't forcing me to buy these things. I could, if I wanted, forego the purchase of a car. This isn't very practical where I live, serviced as I am by a single bus line that comes by once an hour, but I could do it. I could also move someplace with better transit. I'm not absolutely mandated to own seat belts and airbags.

But in real life, the fact is that most of us need a car. It's only an option in the most hyperlegalistic sense, which means that for all practical purposes the federal government has mandated that I buy seat belts and airbags. And they've done that on the theory that even if I don't care about my own safety, other people might ride in my car and they deserve protection. What's more, taxpayers could end up on the hook for medical care if I injure myself and my passengers. So seat belts and airbags are the law.

Practically speaking, then, what's the difference between this and an insurance mandate? In both cases the federal government is forcing me to buy something I might not want. The cost of complying with both mandates is substantial. You can be fined for disabling airbags or removing seat belts, just as Obamacare fines you for not buying health insurance. They're pretty damn similar.

I understand that it's possible to draw a distinction between airbag mandates and health insurance mandates. It's possible to draw a distinction between anything if you put your mind to it. But in real-life terms, what's really the difference? Not much, it seems to me. Unless you live the life of a hermit, Congress already regulates inactivity heavily and extensively. There's stuff you have to buy whether you like it or not. Welcome to the modern world.

Stories about problems in the eurozone often compare the "industrious" north to the "carefree" south. Or maybe the "easy-going" south. Or the "sun-drenched" south. The word lazy is seldom actually used, but it's almost always implied. They're just a bunch of sluggards down in Italy and Spain and Greece and Portugal!

As it happens, this isn't true. According to OECD figures, Italians average about 34 hours of work per week. Portugal clocks in at 33 and Spain at 32. The industrious French, by contrast, work an average of only 30 hours per week. Germans punch in 27 hours per week and the Dutch 26.

The problem isn't laziness, it's lack of productivity. Italians simply don't produce as much per hour as Germans, which means that in order to be competitive they have to be paid less. But over the past decade, thanks to hot currency flows into the south, inflation in Europe's periphery has been high and wages have risen. A currency devaluation could take care of this, but since Germans and Italians all use the euro these days, that's not possible. Nonetheless, one way or another, labor costs need to go up in Germany and France and down in Italy and Spain.

Unfortunately, as Paul Krugman points out this morning, that's just not happening. Not nearly fast enough anyway. Labor costs in Italy have actually risen more than in Germany, and even in Spain and Portugal, which have risen less, the difference is tiny. Spain has made up less than one percentage point on Germany and only about three percentage points on France. At that rate, relative labor costs won't get to where they need to be for decades.

"You can argue that adjustment is happening here," says Krugman, "but it’s painfully slow — and not remotely fast enough to avert catastrophe on the current course." This is true. At the same time, it's also true, as Tyler Cowen points out, that "There does not exist any coherent, workable, political incentive-compatible plan whereby [periphery] governments borrow more, spend more, and 'invest for growth.'" Something along the lines of Jay Shambaugh's plan might work, but nothing along those lines is yet on offer, and Europe simply doesn't have decades before something gives and the eurozone collapses. The question is, how long do they have?

Following his razor-thin 29-point loss to Mitt Romney in Delaware last night — along with his somewhat, um, larger losses in other states — Newt Gingrich is thinking seriously about reassessing his position:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is expected to suspend his presidential campaign within the next week, according to a Republican operative familiar with the decision....“Over the next few days we're going to look realistically at where we're at,” Gingrich said in a speech in Concord Tuesday night. He said he would assess the race “as somebody who's a unifier and somebody who's realistic.”

That's our Newt: a realist and a unifier. So maybe in a week or so he'll announce that, you know, he could have won, but for the good of the party he's dropping out. Because that's just the kind of selfless, big-hearted guy that he is. Yeesh.

Here's the latest from Speaker of the House John Boehner:

Steve Benen does a fine job of explaining why this is so ridiculous. But on the bright side, at least Boehner — or the intern who tweeted this for him — called the 2007 Congress "Democratic-controlled" rather than "Democrat-controlled." Thanks, Mr. Speaker!

As for the substance of the student loan issue, I'll confess to feelings of extreme ambivalence about it. I'm feeling less and less confident over time that increases in federal student aid actually end up aiding students, rather than simply giving universities and trade schools more headroom to raise their fees. But I think I need to study up on this further before I take sides.

If you think that modern parents are entirely too protective of their children, this story is for you:

Although nobody keeps national statistics, orthopedic specialists say they treat a number of toddlers and young children each year with broken legs as a result of riding down the slide on a parent’s lap. A study at Winthrop University Hospital in Mineola, N.Y., found that nearly 14 percent of pediatric leg fractures over an 11-month period involved toddlers riding down the slide with a parent.

....“This fracture is entirely preventable,” said Dr. [Edward] Holt, who has created a warning poster for local pediatrician offices and a YouTube video alerting parents to the hazard....To prevent the injury, the best solution is to allow a child to slide by himself, with supervision and instructions on how to play safely. Young children can be placed on the slide at the halfway point with a parent standing next to the slide. At the very least, parents should remove a child’s shoes before riding down the slide with the child on their laps, and make sure the child’s legs don’t touch the sides or sliding surface.

Just let your kids play. Sure, keep your eyes on them, but otherwise just let them play. They'll be fine. In fact, they'll be more than fine. They'll be better because they're figuring out how the world works all by themselves. I doubt they even need much instruction on how to play safely, either. It's a slide. Most kids grasp the principle pretty easily.

The Pew Hispanic Center reports that net immigration from Mexico into the United States has probably turned negative for the first time since the Great Depression:

The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and broader economic conditions in Mexico.

I wonder if conservatives will ever give President Obama any credit for this? He's taken plenty of heat from lefties over his enforcement and deportation policies, after all, and he's apparently done it in the hope that if illegal immigration can be slowed or stopped, it might be possible to turn down the temperature a bit on immigration hysteria and gain support for the kind of comprehensive reform that failed back in 2006.

In theory, that should work. But I have my doubts. The problem is that the Republican Party is becoming ever more dependent on white votes and the Democratic Party is becoming ever more dependent on minority votes. For purely partisan reasons, then, they both have big incentives to keep the heat cranked up as high as they can. Compromise is becoming less and less in either party's interest. Regardless of who wins in November, 2013 is probably about the best chance for broad reform we're going to have. It's just going to keep getting harder after that.

Over at Salon, Jim Newell has a fun piece about all the stupid predictions that pundits made during the Republican primary campaign. There's obviously a lot of material to mine here, since every single prediction was wrong except for "Romney will eventually grind out a win." Does that mean the punditocracy is hopelessly stupid? Maybe. But I think Paul Waldman gets closer to the truth here:

U. Penn psychologist Philip Tetlock did a lengthy analysis of predictions in politics, and concluded that while most everyone is terrible at predictions, those who have one big idea that they apply to everything do far worse than those who incorporate a diversity of ideas and sources (the former are Isaiah Berlin's hedgehogs, the latter are foxes). Knowing how dangerous predictions can be has led me to be careful about tossing them around willy-nilly, but I've also noticed something else: People like predictions. When I've made an emphatic one, it tends to get more links and tweets. Whenever I see friends or relatives whom I haven't seen in a while, or meet someone who finds out what I do for a living, invariably I get asked what I think the outcome of the moment's political conflict is going to be.

I tend not to make too many predictions myself, though I confess that Romney's eventual victory seemed so obvious to me that I was always a bit flummoxed that so many people seemed so certain someone else would take him down. It's one thing to see people making lots of different predictions about, say, whether the eurozone will survive. That's a genuinely hard problem. But why were so many people willing to get on the bandwagon for Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich? That's craziness.

But I think Paul has the answer: most pundits don't really care if they're right. It's not like they have any money riding on their predictions, after all. But predictions stir the pot, and unusual predictions stir the pot even more. This — controversy, provocation, contrarianism — is the coin of the realm for political pundits. Even among their peers they don't get any props for being right, since political reporters, in their heart of hearts, probably believe the whole enterprise is completely chaotic and inherently unpredictable in the first place.

I have to admit that I've always wondered how good my own prognostication skills are. No better than a coin flip, I'd guess, but the only way to find out for sure would be to plow through a year's worth of past posts and start grading them. There's no way I'm doing that, and there's certainly no incentive for anyone else to do it. That's true of everyone else too, which is why we never have a very good sense of who's a good forecaster and who isn't. It's because, really, we don't want to know. Hell, if someone did turn out to have a good record, we'd probably chalk it up to luck and then go on ignoring them. An accurate crystal ball just gets in the way of a good conversation, and that's the ultimate sin.

Brad DeLong writes today that the standard bargain between Democrats and Wall Street is simple: we might tax you a little more than Republicans, but in return we'll provide you with "competent economic management in striking contrast to that offered by the ideologically-blinded wingnuts who are the Republicans." And President Obama has done just that. So why do the lords of finance almost unanimously hate his guts these days?

A big part of it, I think, is that Obama was not just supposed to make things better: he was supposed to fix things — to bring things back to "normal"....[But] Obama did not fix things: Wall Street bankers today are a lot poorer than they were in mid-2007. And the Wall Street bankers think that Obama disses them. And the Wall Street bankers know that Obama wants to tax them.

I'm not sure I buy this. My sense is that Wall Street financiers, whatever their other blinders, take a pretty intellectual approach to the macroeconomy, and they know that the economy is doing about as well as they could have hoped back in 2008. The stock market is up, corporate profits are up, and bonuses have rebounded. From a purely self-interested financial point of view, I don't think very many of them are really dissatisfied with the Obama/Geithner/Bernanke regime.

So what is it? My guess is two things. First — and there's no point in pulling punches here — they're a bunch of spoiled brats. Over the past three decades they've gotten accustomed to the kind of deference normally offered to grand viziers of the Sublime Porte, and they're simply enraged at the fact that Obama not only doesn't seem very impressed by their accomplishments, but even criticizes them every once in a while. At this point, they have fully convinced themselves that (a) they weren't responsible for the 2008 crash in any way, (b) it's populist demagoguery to suggest otherwise, and (c) the government should stand with them against the rabble-rousers so that they have the freedom to run the world again. Obama doesn't quite agree — not totally, anyway — and that maddens them.

Which brings us to the second thing: regulation. Like a lot of business people, I think they hate regulation more than they hate reduced profits. They'll fight higher taxes, but in the end, that's a pure money thing and they're accustomed to winning and losing money battles. But regulation wounds them far more. It's a signal that they aren't to be trusted. It's a reminder that someone else can tell them what to do. It makes it harder to earn money from purely financial manipulation. Dodd-Frank and Basel III may, in the end, not be very stringent regulatory regimes, but they're still viewed as unfair punishment. And we all know how children react to punishment they view as unfair. They sulk.

In 2008 Wall Street somehow convinced itself that Obama understood them and would protect them from the mob. In reality, he's mostly done that. But he's only done it 80%, not 100%. That missing 20% is the reason they've turned on him like a pack of rabid dogs.