At psychologytoday.com.

TOLEDO, Ohio — Just one day after leaders of the House of Representatives announced a ban on earmarks to profit-making companies, Victoria Kurtz, the vice president for marketing of a small Ohio defense contracting firm, hit on a creative way around it.

To keep the taxpayer money flowing, Ms. Kurtz incorporated what she called the Great Lakes Research Center, a nonprofit organization that just happened to specialize in the same kind of work performed by her own company — and at the same address.

Now, the center — which intends to sell the Pentagon small hollow metal spheres for body armor that the Defense Department has so far declined to buy in large quantities and may never use — has $10.4 million in new earmark requests from Representative Marcy Kaptur, Democrat of Ohio.

The congresswoman, who has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Ms. Kurtz’s family and her business’s lobbyists, thought the quickly hatched nonprofit organization was a convenient solution.

“They met the requirements of the reform,” Ms. Kaptur said in an interview. “Yes, they did.”

Politicians have nothing if not chuztpah.

Can legislative “reform” will eliminate earmarks? I doubt it. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

Truth be told, earmarks are stupid but only a tiny fraction of our budget problems.  At roughly $16 billion per year, they are less than half of the amount by which Medicare increases each year.

IGO, Calif.—Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, his budget under pressure in a weak economy, has laid off staff, reduced patrols and even released jail inmates. But there’s one mission on which he’s spending more than in recent years: pot busts.

The reason is simple: If he steps up his pursuit of marijuana growers, his department is eligible for roughly half a million dollars a year in federal anti-drug funding, helping save some jobs. The majority of the funding would have to be used to fight pot. Marijuana may not be the county’s most pressing crime problem, the sheriff says, but “it’s where the money is.”

People who share my views on the idiocy of drug prohibition often ask me why this insane policy continues. My answer, in part, is that vested interests reap substantial financial gain from continuing the policy, as this story illustrates.

Aside: I was going to write that the sheriff’s quote would make Willie Sutton proud; Sutton famously quipped that he robbed banks because “that’s where they keep the money.” Only it turns out Sutton did not say that; see here.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele is trying to quell controversy over his comments that the war in Afghanistan was of “Obama’s choosing” and is not winnable, remarks that put him at odds with much of his party and that led two influential Republicans to call for his resignation.

I am not sure what Steele meant by saying the war was of “Obama’s choosing,” since it commenced well before Obama was president. Perhaps he was saying Obama should have wound it down by now. If so, I agree, for precisely the reason Steele offers: the war is not winnable.

And despite the outburst of protest in response to Steele’s remarks, I bet most Republicans share this view.

At forbes.com.

When the Dems were pushing Obamacare through Congress despite polls suggesting voter reservations, many commentators predicted this would cost the Dems big time in the November, 2012 elections.

I was skeptical of that argument at the time; see my earlier post.

And some new survey evidence is at least consistent with my view:

The health-care overhaul gained popularity from May to June, according to a new tracking poll.

The results suggest that the Obama administration’s promotion of the legislation may be paying off or that the public may be warming to the law as early provisions take effect.

The Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 48 percent of the public had a favorable view of the law in June while 41 percent had an unfavorable opinion. A month earlier, the split was 41 percent favorable to 44 percent unfavorable.

I agree that Obamacare may hurt the Dems at some point. But in November, 2010, the three issues will be the economy, the economy, and the economy.