Oct. 7, 2014

Welcome to Wonkbook, Wonkblog’s morning policy news primer by Puneet Kollipara (@pkollipara). To subscribe by e-mail, click here. Send comments, criticism or ideas to Wonkbook at Washpost dot com. To read more by the Wonkblog team, click here. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Want to view this on the web? Please click here.

Wonkbook’s Number of the Day: More than 168 million. That's the number of Americans who now live in states where same-sex couples can legally marry, and represents the first time a majority reside in states that allow it.

Wonkbook’s Chart of the Day: 10 charts on jobs, wages, presidential standing and midterm elections.

Wonkbook's Top 4 Stories: (1) The hidden impact of SCOTUS's gay-marriage inaction; (2) the Ebola political football; (3) a long way to go on Dodd-Frank; (4) shale boom trade-offs.

1. Top story: Is the debate over same-sex marriage all but over?

Supreme Court lets stand state rulings allowing same-sex marriage. "The Supreme Court on Monday decided to let stand rulings that allow same-sex marriage in Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin, a move that may dramatically expand across the nation a decades-long movement legalizing such unions. The court’s action marks a turning point. A majority of Americans now live in states where gay couples can wed, and the court’s decision could soon bring the number of those states to 30, meaning there may be no going back....The court’s decision came without explanation and startled those on both sides of the issue who had urged the justices to accept the cases to rule on the constitutionality of marriage in a way that affected all 50 states." Robert Barnes in The Washington Post.

Many more same-sex marriages soon, but where? "First, as a direct result of Monday’s action, same-sex marriages can occur when existing lower-court rulings against state bans go into effect in Virginia in the Fourth Circuit, Indiana and Wisconsin in the Seventh Circuit, and Oklahoma and Utah in the Tenth Circuit. Second, such marriages can occur when the court of appeals rulings are implemented in federal district courts in three more states in the Fourth Circuit...and in three more states in the Tenth Circuit....Third, four other circuits...are currently considering the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. Of those, the Ninth Circuit...is considered most likely to strike down state bans. If that happens, it would add five more states to the marriages-allowed column....which would bring the national total to thirty-five." Lyle Denniston in SCOTUSblog.

Charts:

The changing landscape of same-sex marriage. The Washington Post.

The red-blue divide on same-sex marriage. Philip Bump in The Washington Post.

What happens in the 20 states where same-sex marriages are still illegal? "Technically, the Supreme Court's decision doesn't dictate how those lower court cases should come out. But it also sends a signal that's hard for lower court judges to ignore....No federal appeals court has yet upheld a state law prohibiting same-sex unions. But judges on a Sixth Circuit panel hearing a challenge to four state laws earlier this year expressed skepticism that the Constitution requires states to recognize those marriages. And two of the lawsuits are now in front of the conservative judges of the Fifth Circuit. If either one of those courts upholds a state ban, the justices might be faced with a marriage case that would be harder to sidestep." Brad Heath in USA Today.

How the DOMA decision might actually be a de facto 50-state decision. "The thought at the time was that Windsor’s victory did not bring equality to any new state. (Although, arguably, no state truly had marriage equality before Windsor, given the constraints of DOMA.) But, as lower courts have read the Windsor decision, they have noticed that its language and legal reasoning, which invokes due process and equal protection, silently condemns state bans on same-sex marriage as well. And, one after the other, they’ve overturned those bans. If they keep doing so, the Supreme Court won’t have to rule again. (I’ve written about this possibility before.)" Amy Davidson in The New Yorker.

What the decision tells us about the legal battle over same-sex marriage. "The Supreme Court’s surprising move...may reflect two things about the justices: a natural inclination for incremental steps and a worry on the part of conservatives that the battle — for now — appears lost. Many observers of the court were stunned....Gay rights proponents took it as a sign that the court likes to move slowly when endorsing momentous societal change, that it feels no need to decide an issue before it must — and that the court’s move provides a clear signal for future challenges of voter-approved prohibitions on same-sex marriage." Robert Barnes in The Washington Post.

Why did the justices stay on the sidelines? "The justices may also be hoping to dodge the kind of questions about the court’s legitimacy that followed the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision....Even liberal justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan have suggested that it would have been better not to force a one-size-fits-all solution on states....It’s possible conservatives decided to duck the pending cases because they were confident they would come up short....The conservative justices may be thinking they could prevail if the court’s composition changes under a future president. Or one of the justices — perhaps a chief justice with an eye on his legacy — may have simply not wanted another battle royale over same-sex marriage with the conservatives on the losing end." Josh Gerstein in Politico.

Background reading: Supreme Court's robust new session could define legacy of chief justice. Adam Liptak in The New York Times.

A sign the political debate is also coming to a close: GOP is mostly silent on decision. "The GOP is looking to avoid an issue the party once used to galvanize its base, with candidates purple states appearing as reticent as the high court itself to get involved in the debate, and Republicans in red states where gay marriage used to be a top GOP wedge issue remaining silent. And while candidates in both parties weighed in on the directly affected states of Virginia and North Carolina, it was Democrats who looked to use it as a wedge issue in some purple states, with Republicans seemingly reluctant to engage." Cameron Joseph in The Hill.

But conservative activists are digging in further. "Gay-marriage opponents once held sway with constitutional provisions or laws in 31 U.S. states that banned same-sex unions. After the Supreme Court reduced that number by a third yesterday, they say their resolve is only deepened....Even as proponents of gay marriage declared its inevitability, opponents in the dwindling number of holdout states promised to raise the issue in state and federal elections in November, saying voters, not judges, should have the final word. The court’s refusal to hear the cases may compel candidates to take a stand on an issue many believed would be made moot by the high court." Mark Niquette, Esmé E. Deprez and Jennifer Oldham in Bloomberg.

What overturning interracial marriage bans might tell us about what happens next. "A century ago, marriage between blacks and whites was still illegal in more than half of the states. With the Supreme Court's 1967 decision Loving v. Virginia, the 17 states that still had laws banning the practice found their laws invalidated....Without Loving, it's not clear if those states might have acted sooner. After all, there was only symbolic pressure on them to take action. But it is clear that they likely wouldn't have acted in 1967. Without a similar Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, it's not clear when or how the states on the map below might change, either." Philip Bump in The Washington Post.

Other legal reads:

Court begins term with case on mistaken police actions. Sam Hananel the Associated Press.

Force-feeding of a detainee goes on trial. Charlie Savage in The New York Times.

Explainer: Four business-related cases the court will tackle. Paul M. Barrett in Bloomberg Businessweek.

SCOTUS leaves Bush-era EPA ozone standard intact. Greg Stohr in Bloomberg.

Texas abortion law may be heading to SCOTUS. David Crary and Juan Carlos Llorca in the Associated Press.

EPPS: The justices have effectively settled the fight. "No one really knows what is happening on the upper floors of One First St. N.E. This Court is an enigma in many ways. Thus anything is possible. One thing, however, I will not believe is that this Court will allow thousands of couples nationwide to celebrate marriages, change names, jointly adopt children, become legally one family — and then, in an opinion later in the term, baldly announce that their marriages are in jeopardy or even void. If the justices were later to decide against same-sex marriages, a number of the states where, in a few days, it will be legal, would be back at the Court asking for reconsideration." Garrett Epps in The Atlantic.

EGAN: Legally married gay people can still be legally fired. "It’s a circumstance that’s remarkably out of line with public opinion. Almost all Americans support employment rights for gay people....But such unanimity in attitudes — if it ever arrives — still lies in the distant future on the question of same-sex marriage, where those in favor of legalizing gay marriage currently make up about 55 percent of the American population. So why have advances in marriage equality leaped ahead of employment discrimination protections for gay people? The answer lies in the differences between marriage law and employment law, and the sharply different stances that the two parties have taken on gay rights." Patrick J. Egan in The Washington Post.

TOOBIN: The Roberts court's brief progressive moment. "As this year’s midterm elections approach, the Court is sure to hear more challenges to the voter-suppression initiatives that were passed by some of the states that came under Republican control following the 2010 elections. So far, the Court has rubber-stamped all the initiatives to have come before it, and there is every reason to believe that this pattern will continue. It is a day to note and to celebrate a civil-rights revolution that is nearing a complete victory. But it is also a moment when other progressive causes are losing ground in the Supreme Court. On race and voting rights, the Roberts Court’s likely direction is all too clear." Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker.

Top opinion

CHAIT: California's radical sex-law experiment. "The Democratic Party has built what looks like a stable and demographically expanding national electoral majority. But coalitions can come unglued, and eventually, all of them do, when their policies fail or their elected officials push them too far from the center of public opinion. If you want to see glimmerings of this future unraveling of the Democratic coalition, look where the future is so often found: in California. There Governor Jerry Brown has recently signed an 'affirmative consent law.'...It is a massive broadening of the legal definition of rape, and a new blow in the culture wars that will likely reverberate in ways liberals have barely begun to contemplate." Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine.

WARSHAWSKY AND BIGGS: Income inequality and rising health costs. "These figures merely illustrate a long-term trend of rising health costs eating away at wages. The real story is even more dramatic: Government data show that health costs are the biggest driver of income inequality in America today. Most employers pay workers a combination of wages and benefits, the most important of which is health coverage. Economic theory says that when employers’ costs for benefits like health coverage rise, they will hold back on salary increases to keep total compensation costs in check. That’s exactly what seems to have happened." Mark J. Warshawsky and Andrew G. Biggs in The Wall Street Journal.

HERBERT: The plot against public education. "Those who are genuinely interested in improving the quality of education for all American youngsters are faced with two fundamental questions: First, how long can school systems continue to pursue market-based reforms that have failed year after demoralizing year to improve the education of the nation’s most disadvantaged children? And second, why should a small group of America’s richest individuals, families, and foundations be allowed to exercise such overwhelming — and often such toxic — influence over the ways in which public school students are taught?" Bob Herbert in Politico Magazine.

MORGENTHAU: Keep the children with their families. "Economic woe in Central America has meant fewer jobs and more poverty. In July the leaders of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras appealed to Mr. Obama and Congress for monetary assistance that could be used to promote economic growth. We should provide that aid, both to the Central American governments and to nongovernmental organizations working in those countries on these issues. Personal safety and a chance at making a decent living would encourage children to stay in their home countries. However, for the children who are already here and have rejoined their U.S.-based relatives, we must show compassion and keep them together with their families." Robert M. Morgenthau in The Wall Street Journal.

FLORIDA: The fading urban-suburban distinction. "Cities are resurgent, but their comeback also calls into question our basic models of 'urban' and 'suburban,' blurring the hard and fast lines between them. As I pointed out a while back, high-income people in living in advantaged urban and suburban neighborhoods lead essentially similar lives. While their urban neighborhoods might be denser and have more tall buildings, and their suburban communities have larger lots and more single-family homes, people living in both types of communities shop in similar stores, send their kids to similar schools and enjoy similar amenities. As the Great Inversion continues, city leaders, urbanists and all of us will find ourselves confronting these new realities of geography and class." Richard Florida in The Atlantic CityLab.

ESTES: How the Big Tobacco deal went bad. "The only people making money on these bonds are investment bankers who fooled state politicians into believing that ready money in their state coffers now was more important than any future consequences....It won’t be easy to fix it. The state legislatures are the only ones that can refuse to authorize a bailout or a guarantee of the bonds, and yet despite the ominous examples of Rhode Island and New Jersey, there is still active discussion of guarantees by other states. The only possible solution seems to be direct action by the voters...who could call for and pass a referendum prohibiting the issue of new tobacco settlement bonds and stopping the restructuring of existing bonds without voter approval." Jim Estes in The New York Times.

Astronomy interlude: Look out for a blood moon on Wednesday.

2. The Ebola response is getting caught up in politics

U.S. will augment Ebola screenings for airline passengers in U.S. and Africa. "Neither the president nor White House officials elaborated on exactly what those new screenings would entail. At the moment, passengers leaving the three nations most affected by the virus — Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone — are screened for symptoms at the airport before departing....The new screening possibilities being considered by the administration include taking the temperature of travelers from affected countries upon their arrival at major U.S. airports and more-closely tracking travel histories for international travelers arriving in the United States" Mark Berman and Brady Dennis in The Washington Post.

Charts: Most Americans say they're confident in government's ability to handle Ebola response. Pew Research Center.

No travel ban, White House says. "However, the White House said that a ban on travel from West African countries, which some U.S. officials have called for, would slow the fight against Ebola. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said officials did not want to impede transport systems used to send supplies and personnel to the hardest-hit countries in West Africa, so a travel ban was not being considered. Airlines for America, a Washington-based trade group, separately said it would meet health and safety officials on Monday to discuss whether additional screening procedures anywhere in the world might help improve on those already in place." Roberta Rampton and Richard Valdmanis in Reuters.

Why politicians of both parties should stop pushing for a travel ban: Ebola needs to be fought at its source. "The problem is that a travel ban could make things worse....First, a travel ban wouldn't cover as many sick people you might think. Bloom said that only two airlines regularly fly into the hardest hit regions....And the socio-economic group most likely to be exposed to Ebola isn't regularly flying to the U.S. It's much more likely that the people using those flights are health care workers from the U.S. and other countries, and it would be hard to persuade them to travel to Liberia or Sierra Leone if they didn't know how they would get back home. That would make it harder to combat the disease where it's doing the most damage....And yet, the idea of travel ban will likely gain more traction during the coming week, not less." Arit John in Bloomberg.

Republicans beat the travel-ban drum... "Leading Republicans are racing to propose strict new limits on air travel to safeguard Americans against Ebola, the deadly virus that has reached the United States and left a Liberian man battling for his life in a Dallas hospital. The latest to adopt that public position is Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), a potential 2016 presidential candidate who is back in the national spotlight after doctors made the first Ebola diagnosis in the United States in his home state....Republican strategists say it is all part of an effort to flex leadership credentials and tap into concerns Americans have with President Obama's readiness to handle crises after a series of missteps in his second term." Sean Sullivan in The Washington Post.

...especially those looking at a 2016 bid. "If anything, the calmer voices have been coming from Republicans who aren’t about to jump into the White House race....It’s a glaring contrast, but most public health experts — including GOP health care experts — say there’s nothing wrong with the 2016 Republicans raising questions about the effectiveness of the Obama administration’s safeguards against Ebola, or asking whether stronger measures should be taken. It’s the tone that makes all the difference in the world — especially for politicians who are basically auditioning for the role of commander in chief." David Nather in Politico.

GOP wants an Ebola czar. They have some specific recommendations for it, too. "Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) are urging President Obama to tap an Ebola czar to oversee the U.S. effort to stop the global outbreak, and they have a few ideas about who should get the job. Their suggestions include former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and former Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt. All had been members of the Bush administration. Gates also served in the Obama administration as Secretary of Defense." Sarah Ferris in The Hill.

Republicans, Obama administration haggle over Ebola funding shift. "Almost $1 billion to help the U.S. military fight Ebola in West Africa has been tied up for nearly a month as the Obama administration negotiates with a handful of Republicans in Congress to lift their objections. The lawmakers are demanding detailed plans on uses for the funds, precautions to keep military personnel from contracting the deadly virus and prevent the mission from turning into an expensive, long-term Pentagon commitment. The lawmakers have held firm in these demands despite the first Ebola case being diagnosed in the United States in recent days, releasing only $50 million of the request to shift $1 billion from the Defense Department's war operations budget." David Lawder in Reuters.

What if Ebola does become endemic in Africa? We'll need faster diagnostics. "If that does happen, the solution for rapid, in-the-field testing likely won’t be Corgenix’s device. It will be a different diagnostic test developed by a California company called Nanōmix, which has partnered with Corgenix and Tulane researchers. The Nanōmix test is a multiplex device: It can detect multiple diseases at once. This is particularly important in West Africa, where Lassa fever, malaria, and now Ebola are all prevalent. All three of those diseases have similar symptoms — fever, vomiting, diarrhea—but require different treatments. It’s vital for doctors to have a correct diagnosis as early as possible. Nanōmix’s device would do just that in minutes." Danny Vinik in The New Republic.

KENNY: The American argument against a travel ban. "Controlling illness by quarantine of an entire country or region involves trade-offs. It’s always theoretically possible to avoid risk by completely cutting yourself off from contact, but then you’ll be alone. We take some risk of infection through contact because the benefits of that contact outweigh the risks. Trade is worth one-quarter of U.S. gross domestic product. People want to travel to see family and friends, visit new places, work, or invest. We think all that is worth the price of somewhat increased risks of illness....Other global diseases pose a far greater threat to the U.S. than Ebola....Even without a formal travel ban, most of the economic harm from epidemics comes from reduced commerce....A travel ban would also be counterproductive for selfish reasons." Charles Kenny in Bloomberg Businessweek.

GARRETT: Screening tests to keep Ebola out of your neighborhood. "One of these screening tests should soon meet the criteria of speed, accuracy, and ease of use necessary to prevent travelers' spread of Ebola; facilitate contact tracing; and, in the midst of the epidemic, tell who has the virus and who does not. And that could put an end to prolonged quarantines of uninfected populations, airport fears, and talk of banning entire nations from traveling. Better still, the worried, panicked parents and flummoxed politicians could inhale deeply and focus on the real problem: Ending the West African Ebola epidemic." Laurie Garrett in Foreign Policy.

GERSON: Ethical issues with an Ebola vaccine. "Why, in times of medical emergency, do we need to trust reliable scientific authorities? Because they are required to do unspeakably difficult things that would not survive the majority vote of a frightened public. In a Phase 2 trial, researchers give some people a vaccine that may hurt them, and some people a placebo that may result in their infection and death. This turns out to be the only ethical way we currently have to determine if a vaccine actually works. On an Ebola vaccine, this process should be expedited in any way possible. But it can’t be avoided without the potential for great harm." Michael Gerson in The Washington Post.

Other health care reads:

Plan cancellations coming again, but for relatively few. Margot Sanger-Katz in The New York Times.

$1.1 billion in drug, device payments not included in new database. Charles Ornstein in ProPublica.

'The Simpsons' interlude: 25 years of couch gags at the same time.

3. Still a long way to go on Dodd-Frank implementation

Obama urges regulators to tailor standards for financial firms. "President Barack Obama gathered the top U.S. market regulators at the White House on Monday and urged them to look for ways to tailor rules based on financial firms' size and complexity. The White House, in a readout of the meeting, also said Obama pushed the regulators to look for additional ways to prevent excessive risk in the financial system, possibly through bank pay rules and capital standards....The statement did not specify how Obama wanted the regulators to tailor financial reforms....Regulators are still finalizing rules called for in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform act." Sarah N. Lynch in Reuters.

Progress, but a long way to go on financial regs. "So far this year, 55 percent have been finalized and rules have been proposed for 21 percent. Nearly a quarter of the regulations called for in the law have not yet been proposed....Among rules enacted since Obama pushed for action last year is a ban on the largest banks from trading for their own profit in most cases. That regulation, known as the Volcker Rule, is considered one of the more significant changes to financial laws because it seeks to rein in high-risk trading on Wall Street....That rule won't take effect for the biggest banks until mid-2015.Regulators continue to work on additional requirements that would address executive pay and set standards for the amount of money and assets banks would have to hold to avoid becoming over-extended." Jim Kuhnhenn in the Associated Press.

Banks face another round of charges. "With evidence mounting that a number of foreign and American banks colluded to alter the price of foreign currencies, the largest and least regulated financial market, prosecutors are aiming to file charges against at least one bank by the end of the year, according to interviews with lawyers briefed on the matter. Ultimately, several banks are expected to plead guilty....While cases stemming from the financial crisis were aimed at institutions, prosecutors are planning to eventually indict individual bank employees over currency manipulation, using their instant messages as incriminating evidence. The charges will most likely focus on traders and their bosses rather than chief executives." Ben Protess and Jessica Silver-Greenberg in The New York Times.

Data breach raises concerns about financial system's safety. "Hackers got access to a massive number of accounts — 83 million....But security experts and officials are more concerned that the attackers lingered in the system and returned at least five times to see how far they could penetrate the financial giant’s internal networks, which are generally thought to be among the most secure in corporate America....That behavior indicates something more nefarious than a simple robbery. Ultimately, the hackers appeared to cull only e-mail and physical addresses of customers, the bank has said. But the attack has raised alarms in Washington, New York and beyond, given Wall Street’s critical place in the U.S. economy." Danielle Douglas-Gabriel in The Washington Post.

Are we suffering from data-breach fatigue? "Wall Street — and consumers — appear ready to shrug it off. The home improvement retailer’s stock is up more than 14 percent this year and more than 2 percent since it confirmed a six-month breach of its payment system....Home Depot says it expects its sales growth this year to be unaffected by the massive cyber intrusion. And after JPMorgan said last Thursday that cybercriminals had obtained customer names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses for 76 million households, the company’s stock price has hardly budged. The companies may be benefiting from what experts say is a potentially dangerous shift among consumers: data breach fatigue." Sarah Halzack in The Washington Post.

Paulson: AIG bailout designed to be 'punishment.' "The 2008 government bailout of American International Group Inc. was specifically designed to punish the insurance giant, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in U.S. court Monday. The $85 billion loan package extended to AIG...gave the government control of 80 percent of its stock. Unlike other major financial firms rescued in the middle of the worst economic downturn in roughly 80 years, Paulson said that AIG shareholders should have faced punishment for their troubled balance sheet as part of any rescue. Paulson's testimony came as part of a lawsuit brought by former AIG chairman and CEO Maurice Greenberg." Josh Boak in the Associated Press.

Other economic/financial reads:

JPMorgan hackers sought to infiltrate other institutions. Danny Yadron, Emily Glazer and Devlin Barrett in The Wall Street Journal.

Expand automated trading protectiosn to include brokerages, SEC members say. Dave Michaels in Bloomberg.

Fed's labor-market conditions index strengthens. Christopher Condon in Bloomberg.

Metal interlude: "Ducktales" meets heavy metal.

4. The trade-offs of the shale boom

With more hydraulic fracturing comes more oil and gas... "The United States has surpassed Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s biggest oil producer, with Texas and North Dakota accounting for more than half of American drilling. The U.S. also is now the world’s biggest producer of natural gas. This American energy boom is because of hydraulic fracturing....Drillers have honed their fracking techniques since the start of the energy boom and are now getting far more oil and gas from each rig....The growth in the drilling boom has environmental downsides, with complaints about industrial sand mining and the huge amounts of water used in fracking." Sean Cockerham in McClatchy Newspapers.

...and a greater need for pipelines. "The rise of new technologies like hydraulic fracturing has opened up vast new stores of both natural gas and oil in the United States, and that, in turn, is driving a boom in new pipeline infrastructure to move the fuels around. The pipelines are entering previously uncharted territories...often causing controversy among landowners, local governments, and clean-energy advocates. In some cases, the opposition is philosophical....But for others like Owen, the concerns are more local. They complain that state and federal regulators are often too quick to approve new projects that come with real risks." Peter Moskowitz in Yale Environment 360.

And more methane emissions. "The report drew from Interior Department data to show that emissions of the potent but short-lived greenhouse gas rose 135 percent over the period. Much of the emissions were attributed to 'venting' and 'flaring'....Venting and flaring have become a nuisance for drillers and environmentalists alike since they waste gas and produce emissions. But many regions lack the pipelines and other infrastructure they need to use all the natural gas drillers are capturing. Other sources of emissions from fracking on federal lands include methane that leaks during fracking, and some environmentalists worry it could erase the climate benefits of natural gas." Zack Colman in the Washington Examiner.

Other environmental/energy reads:

Keystone XL delay won't slow Canadian pipelines, industry official says. Greg Quinn in Bloomberg.

Agency questions firms on crude exports. Timothy Gardner and Valerie Volcovici in Reuters.

Are energy sanctions on Russia working? Clare Foran in National Journal.

Animals interlude: Funny examples of cat logic.

Wonkblog roundup

Why extremely expensive drugs are often worth the cost. Jason Millman.

What the Supreme Court said today by not saying anything at all on gay marriage. Emily Badger.

Name That Data answers, Week 11. Christopher Ingraham.

With the NBA’s new broadcasting deal, the players now have all the power. Roberto A. Ferdman.

The architects of the 2008 financial bailouts have their day in court. Max Ehrenfreund.

Heavily armed drug cops raid retiree’s garden, seize okra plants. Christopher Ingraham.

The brain science that just won a Nobel Prize could help us build better cities. Emily Badger.

Ben Affleck and Bill Maher are both wrong about Islamic fundamentalism.Christopher Ingraham.

Et Cetera

VA moves to ax 4 officials in response to scandal. Matthew Daly in the Associated Press.

Regulation clips wings of drone makers. Jack Nicas in The Wall Street Journal.

2-tier Secret Service faces a test. Matt Apuzzo in The New York Times.

State of the non-state, Washington, D.C. Jennifer Steinhauer in The New York Times.

Cyberattacks on state databases escalate. Jeffrey Stinson in Pew Stateline.

Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail us.

Wonkbook is produced with help from Michelle Williams and Ryan McCarthy

newsletters@email.washingtonpost.com