So her skeletal “plan” is out. At the same time, there’s a story in a “progressive” publication claiming that Mrs. Clinton really didn’t have much to do with what came to be known as Hillarycare in 1993-1994.

In what should henceforth be known as a Hillary Howler, Paul Starr, co-editor of the American Prospect, tries to convince us that Hillary was, in essence, a figurehead (late HT to Instapundit; bolds are mine):

Though the media scarcely registered it at the time, (Bill) Clinton had described this approach in a speech and referred to it in the presidential debates. Moreover, he saw health-care reform through the prism of economic policy, believed that reducing the long-term growth in health costs was a national imperative, and insisted that even while making coverage universal, health-care reform had to bring down future costs below current projections for both the government and the private economy. Among Clinton’s close advisors, Ira Magaziner championed the view that these aims were achievable. When he became the director of the health-reform effort and Hillary the chair, their job was not to choose a policy, but to develop the one that the president had already adopted.

Despite all the attention it received, however, the President’s Task Force — consisting of members of the cabinet and several other senior officials — proved to be useless for reaching decisions and drafting the plan. It immediately became the subject of litigation and dissolved at the end of May without making any recommendations. Bill Clinton actually never gave up control of the policy-making process, and the work fell to a small team of advisors and analysts that Magaziner directed. Beginning in March and continuing in a stop-and-go fashion until September, the decision meetings about the plan took place outside the formal structure of the task force, usually in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, and the president ran the meetings himself.

My knowledge of this process is first-hand.

It seems to me that Mr. Starr is admitting “first-hand” that the Clinton Administration used the publicly-visible “Task Force” as a front-group distraction to shield the actual work of the insiders’ “task force” from public scrutiny. How “clever.”

As to Starr’s claim about Hillary’s non-involvement: Nice try, pal. No sale.

If Mrs. Clinton didn’t really have much to do with Hillarycare, as Starr claims, I don’t see how this is possible (also here at Wikipedia):

September 28, 1993 - Hillary Clinton begins several days of testimony on health care before five congressional committees. Her appearance is both dramatic and triumphant. Its very success, however, triggers new and intense activity among opponents who see in her a foe whose defeat will require their most determined efforts.

How did Hillary get through “several days of testimony” without being very knowledgeable about what the insiders’ “task force” had developed? Likely answer: Mrs. Clinton, in additional to being in charge of the public “Task Force,” was also one of the insiders on the non-public one, or was kept so well-apprised of what it was doing that she might as well have been.

Additionally, 13-1/2 years later, but six months before some campaign-consulting “genius” apparently came up with the idea that Hillary’s close association with what came to be known as Hillarycare would not be helpful, Ms. Clinton said the following (scroll down about 40% of the way to the “Hillary Clinton on 1990s Hillarycare” section) at the March SEIU Democratic Health Care Forum in Las Vegas (bolds are mine):

I feel a little bit like this is deja vu all over again. All those years ago, we tried to convince the country and the Congress–we convinced the country but we didn’t convince the Congress!–that we needed to move toward and achieve universal health care coverage. Now, I am proud we tried. We may not have succeeded, but we set the groundwork in place so that now people are saying, boy, we wish we had done that back then because costs have continued to increase. Pressures on the system, on our doctors, our nurses, our health care workers have just been so stressful. So what we need to do is to make a commitment. And I’m proud that everyone running on the Democratic side is committed to universal health care coverage. I am in favor of universal health care coverage that brings in the 47 million who are uninsured–which is a disgrace–and begins to guarantee coverage to people who already have insurance, because there are a lot of people who think they have insurance except when they need it.

Why, if what Mr. Starr claims about her non-involvement is true, would she not have given credit to her husband instead of using “we” so many times — the bolded uses of “we” substitutable with “my husband and I”? And if she really wasn’t very involved, why would she have allowed everyone to believe she was all these years — up to and including that March speech? A saying about not being able to have one’s cake and eat it too comes to mind.

And now, a free bonus: Allah at Hot Air is wondering whether Mrs. Clinton’s plan will give “universal coverage” to illegal immigrants. Six months ago, her statement that “I am in favor of universal health care coverage that brings in the 47 million who are uninsured” made it crystal-clear that the 12 milllion or so illegals who are included in that 47 million would indeed be covered.

There’s no need for Allah to wait for Clinton policy adviser Laurie Rubiner to “get back to” him. Her boss has already given us the answer.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

E-mailer Joe C pointed me to an important subscription-only Wall Street Journal op-ed by Fred Barnes that appeared on Saturday.

Barnes goes over the results of Indiana’s privatizations of its toll road and other services, noting the long-term economic and political results. They are cause for Hoosier State hoopla, and Buckeye State blues (bolds are mine):

When Mitch Daniels was elected governor of Indiana in 2004, his role models were Republican governors Jeb Bush of Florida and Bill Owens of Colorado. “They were both solid conservatives who were activists and had done big things,” he told me. Now, reform-minded governors — Mark Sanford of South Carolina, for one — regard Mr. Daniels as a governor they’d like to emulate.

….. In June 2006, Mr. Daniels opened eight bids for leasing the 157-mile Indiana Toll Road, accepting the $3.8 billion offered by a consortium of Macquarie Infrastructure Group of Australia and Cintra, the giant Spanish construction firm. The lease, he insisted, was “the right thing to do,” since the consortium agreed to upgrade the deteriorating road, add new lanes and install E-Z Pass computer billing to keep traffic flowing through toll booths. But polls found Indiana citizens disapproved by a 2-1 margin.

Now, 15 months later, Mr. Daniels has been vindicated: The money from the lease will pay for a 10-year road-building program that requires no new taxes or borrowing. Construction has begun on projects originally planned two decades ago.

Had the state continued to operate the tollway and rely on the gasoline tax to pay for road work, Indiana would have fallen further behind in making critical highway repairs. “The gasoline tax doesn’t come close anymore,” the governor said. “The need keeps growing.” In one year, interest on the $3.8 billion raised by the lease brought in roughly $250 million, more than the state earned running the tollway for a half a century.

Mr. Daniels has also privatized thousands of state jobs and numerous state functions. Prisons used to cook their own meals; by outsourcing food preparation, he said, the state is saving $14 million a year. “And the food got better.” Administration of the welfare program was turned over to an IBM-led consortium, with savings estimated by Mr. Daniels at $500 million over 10 years. He also refused to extend an executive order that had forced state employees to pay union dues. Once the dues became voluntary, 85% of the state work force stopped paying.

Mr. Daniels is not the perfect model of a conservative governor. But he’s bold, he’s lured Japanese companies to Indiana, notably Honda, and stirred a stagnant economy. And he’s privatized inefficient state functions despite union opposition and minimal public support. Other governors can benefit from what Mr. Daniels learned the hard way: Don’t propose tax increases when spending cuts are possible.

He is running for re-election next year, but not with much relish. “I was never obsessed with holding office,” he says. That may be good. Because some conservatives dislike Mr. Daniels, Democrats think there might be an opening to defeat him.

At re-election time, Indianans of any political persuasion who minimize the impact of Daniels’ economic performance (of course if continued), will have to be blind in one eye and not able to see out of the other.

Ken Blackwell, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland’s 2006 GOP opponent, proposed privatizing the 241-mile Ohio Turnpike during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Perhaps voter caution was understandable at the time, given that the only toll road privatization success story available was the 7.8-mile Chicago Skyway.

Today, it’s hard to argue with Indiana’s much more substantial success. More important, the Hoosier State’s toll-road and other privatization decisions have collectively made it a clearly superior choice in the competition for jobs and economic development — and it shows. Though hit hard by the slumps at GM, Ford, and Chrysler (to be fair, not as hard as Michigan and Ohio), Indiana’s 4.6% unemployment rate (link content will change on September 25) was the same as the rest of the nation, and significantly lower than each of its neighbors (OH - 5.8%; IL - 5.2%; MI - 7.2%; KY - 5.7%).

Buckeye State voters and taxpayers should be asking Governor Ted Strickland and the Ohio Legislature when they will privatize the Turnpike. Not if — when.

Over the weekend, Don Luskin told us that inflation is not under control, and that a big rate cut by the Fed today would be a mistake. He also takes shots at former Fed Chairman Greenspan that, in hindsight, are richly deserved:

In reality, the economy appears to be doing quite well by almost all indicators.

Yet the panic is a reality, too. And after a while, whether or not the panic is really justified, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We may be looking at a situation in which the economy will fall into recession for no better reason than because people fear that it will.

So what’s Bernanke to do? Cut rates just because a bunch of bond traders are panicking, when there’s no real sign of economic weakness? Yes, that’s probably exactly what he’s going to do.

….. Bernanke isn’t free to cut interest rates the way Greenspan did, because inflation is suddenly very much coming back to life. In the last several weeks, while the credit crisis has caused the market to expect a Fed rate cut, all the classic indicators of inflation have gone into the red zone.

….. Let’s remember that none of this is really new. It’s a continuation of trends that began in 2002 and 2003 when the Fed slashed interest rates to absurdly low levels and held them there. The Fed made money so cheap and so plentiful, it was virtually inevitable that commodities like gold and oil would rise, and that the dollar would fall.

….. So while it’s refreshing to hear Alan Greenspan admit that he doesn’t know everything, it would be even more refreshing to hear him admit that blunders while he was Fed chair are what got us into the fix we are in today.

At this point, I just hope that Ben Bernanke learns from Greenspan’s mistakes, whether or not he has confessed them. Here’s hoping that next week the FOMC holds itself to just a 25 basis point cut, not the 50 basis point cut many people expect. And here’s hoping that the Fed doesn’t promise more to come.

Don Luskin is correct.

__________________________________________

The Wall Street Journal delivered a Greenspan post-mortem and history lesson in a subscription-only editorial yesterday:

The housing recession has caused the overall economy to slow, and recession worries are rampant. Many on Wall Street want their bubble back, and they are begging the Fed to reflate. But inflation also remains near the upper limit of the Fed’s comfort level, the dollar is weak, gold is back above $700 and oil briefly popped above $80 a barrel last week.

For those of us who remember the economics of the 1970s, one abiding lesson is that trouble comes when the Fed is asked to spur economic growth. The job of a central bank is price stability. The Reagan-Paul Volcker policy mix was tight money combined with tax cutting, which reversed the 1970s’ mix of easy money and tax increases. Washington is in danger of drifting back, almost unconsciously, to that 1970s’ policy. Whether or not the Fed cuts rates tomorrow, we’d feel better about the decision if Fed chairmen present and past weren’t offering alibis for how we arrived at this pass.

Current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, in my opinion to avoid criticizing his predecessor, is blaming a “global savings glut” for the tenuousness of the current situation.

The Journal editorial is correct.

_________________________________________

Mike Adams thinks terror-sympathizing Kent State prof Julio Pino should be relieved of his duties — at least. A rundown of many of Pino’s blog posts is here.

The Jawa Report has more, including this February post.

Mike Adams is correct.

________________________________________

Patrick Poole has a must-read on Arab Student Aid International:

The Dublin, Ohio-based not-for-profit organization, Arab Student Aid International (ASAI), has funneled millions of dollars over the last decade to the HAMAS-founded and -operated Islamic University of Gaza (IUG) – an institution well known to be a financial and operational front for the terrorist organization – in addition to two other universities, Al-Quds and Al-Najah, both with extensive ties to HAMAS and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

….. Congress considers tightening the controls of USAID and other governmental institutions to prevent US government funds from finding their way to HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations through the Palestinian universities, it may also want to investigate ways to prohibit US companies, universities and “charities” from doing the same.

Patrick Poole is correct.

________________________________________

The Wall Street Journal had a great subscription-only op-ed by Betsay McCaughey Friday about an irresponsible decision by the American Cancer Society:

Cancer Killers

Last week the American Cancer Society announced it will no longer run ads about the dangers of smoking and other cancer-causing behaviors and the benefits of regular screenings. Instead, the Society will devote this year’s entire advertising budget to a campaign for universal health coverage. John Seffrin, the Society’s chief executive, said, “[I]f we don’t fix the health-care system . . . lack of access will be a bigger cancer killer than tobacco.”

Sadly, these ads will waste money that should be used to continue the Society’s educational campaign about prevention and detection. The evidence shows that universal health coverage does not improve survival rates for cancer patients.

That last sentence from Ms. McCaughey is almost correct. Later in her column she shows, as others have, that “universal coverage” (i.e., nationalized health care) lowers those survival rates.

Funds provided to the American Cancer Society are henceforth political contributions, and should be treated as such by tax and regulatory authorities.

From Eldoret, Kenya:

Kenya’s Kimani Nganga Maruge hit the headlines around the world earlier this year for being the oldest man in Kenya to start school - aged 84.
The great-grandfather has now won a place in the Guinness Book of World Records for being the oldest person in the world to start primary school.

He started Kapkenduiywa school in the western town of Eldoret on 12 January.

Kenya’s government introduced free primary schooling in 2003, making it possible for Mr Maruge to attend.

Two of his 30 grandchildren attend the same school but they are in more senior grades.

Go here for the rest of the story.