Short term, overall market activity is largely random. Unless, that is, there is some overwhelming new information that can, in fact, change the aggregate valuation level. We thought that might happen this morning, with the Supreme Court preparing to rule on Obamacare. As it turns out, we’ll have to wait three more days, until June 28, to find out whether a proposed restructuring of about 18 percent of the U.S. economy is constitutional or not.

To quote our vice president, this is a big #*%!-ing deal. I don’t want to get into the details of the policy: first of all, I’m not qualified, and second of all, I try to stick to facts rather than opinions here. The factual takeaway, though, is that the federal government has asserted a right to restructure nearly a fifth of the economy. Literally everyone’s life will be affected in one way or another.

We talked yesterday about the unemployment statistics and about how what is generally reported is not so much misleading as it is incomplete. That discussion is actually—and not by accident—a good lead-in for today.

There has been a great deal of coverage of the slowing recovery and of how that slowdown might mean a recession. Let’s look at what this means both for now and into the next six months or so.

Yesterday, I shared my view that the European situation will probably be resolved, and the eurozone preserved, as the alternative could be a return to the conflicts that ripped the continent apart in the last century. The Greek elections were the latest crisis flash point, opening up the possibility of electing Syriza, a party that had pledged to reject the painfully negotiated bailout package.

But not, perhaps, what you are thinking of. The economic shock I’m referring to happened a couple years ago at a conference given by Capital Economics, a consultancy we use. There, for the first time, I heard a very accomplished and respectable economist make a case for protectionism. I was stunned.

Not, he hastened to add, that protectionism was a good thing overall—it wasn’t—but he believed that the U.S. could potentially be better off with the imposition of some trade-limiting measures. Although we might have to pay for this benefit with larger losses elsewhere, the U.S. would be better off on a net basis.

The pain in Spain continues, with yields hitting a euro-area high of 6.8 percent—very close to what is widely viewed as the 7-percent red line that would compel a bailout. Intra-European political debates about how best to handle the situation are ongoing, with non-Germans demanding that Germany pay and Germany, understandably, looking for other options.

I don’t want to talk about that today, though, for a couple of reasons. First, because we already discussed it for the past two days and nothing material has changed. And second, because there is some U.S. economic news that warrants discussion.

This is the inaugural post in Commonwealth’s new blog, The Independent Market Observer. It is being written on my birthday, which makes it somehow nice that we’re kicking off this blog on the same day I came into the world.

For those who don’t know me, my name is Brad McMillan. I am Commonwealth’s chief investment officer and will be the primary author of the posts here. I will also bring in content from other members of the Commonwealth team where it makes sense—we have a wealth of talent here, and I want to share that—but I see this as my soapbox from which to highlight, on a regular basis, what I think is important in the economy and markets.

Sell in May and go away?

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk5WE1GQqus&w=560&h=315]