This post proves the point, as if it even needs to be proven, that you have to go to the editorial pages of publications like the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily to get yours news when leftists are in control of the government.

When the topic is statist health care, that’s doubly true.

IBDeditorials.com got to Page 16 of the House’s health care bill, did the investigative work the establishment media was either too lazy to do — or worse, other outlets did the work and didn’t think readers should know what IBD found.

Yesterday afternoon, IBD laid the following bombshell on its readers (HT to dscott; I also heard Rush mention this a short time ago; bolds after title are mine):

It’s Not An Option

Congress: It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither.

….. What wasn’t known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

….. The public option won’t be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

As I commented to dscott earlier today, “So Obama’s definition of a ‘level playing field’ is one where his private competitors can’t get any new customers.”

The fact that little old IBD (no offense, guys, but I know your resources are relatively thin) had to find and investigate all of this on its own should be a cause for shame in every major newsroom in America. More than likely, it is not.

Yes, the House bill writers really tried to obfuscate their handiwork. It’s very easy to breeze over “does not” without realizing that it really means “cannot.” But IBD caught it, and hundreds of other supposed “real journalists” did not.

Here is all of what the Associated Press had to say about health care legislation at 2:37 this afternoon (saved here at host):

The overall House bill, which would cover around 94 percent of non-elderly residents, would create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers, require individuals to get insurance and large companies to provide it and tax the wealthiest Americans.

….. The Senate health panel’s $615 billion measure would require individuals to get health insurance and employers to contribute to the cost. The bill calls for the government to provide financial assistance with premiums for individuals and families making up to four times the federal poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four, a broad cross-section of the middle class.

I guess the end of new individual private insurance wasn’t that important.

Somebody at the AP, AFP, Reuters, other wires, the New York Times, the Washington Post, all major newspapers, the alphabet news channels (including Fox in this case), and so many other self-important establishment media outlets needs to explain to the public they supposedly serve why they didn’t detect and investigate what IBD found.

They can’t. Consumers of meaningful news, be advised. If you’re not reading IBD’s and WSJ’s editorials, there’s a high chance you’re not truly informed. If you rely on the rest of the establishment media, there’s a high chance you’re misinformed.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

___________________________________________________________

UPDATE: The liars at a site that deserves no link in this post claim that a bill summary provided by the House says that “the Health Insurance Exchange “creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers.”

It doesn’t mean a bleeping thing what the “summary” says. It’s what the LAW says. And the law says that you’ve got to go through a government-run “health insurance exchange” when you do things in your life that require you to change your health carrier (leave your job to start a business, etc.).

The very existence and anticipated intervention of a government-run “Heath Insurance Exchange” ends the ability of a private individual or family to buy an individual/family policy directly, with no intervention, from a private insurer. The most effective health insurance exchange ever concocted, known as the free choice free market, won’t exist.

Thus, IBD is right; individual private insurance will be illegal under the House bill.

I guess this email from the Greene County Republican Party confirms Matt’s post over at WMD …

MIKE DEWINE WILL ANNOUNCE

HIS INTENTIONS TO RUN FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE.

THE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL BE MADE AT 10:00 A.M.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2009.

ON THE

SECOND FLOOR OF GREENE COUNTY’S COURT HOUSE.

PLEASE COME AND INVITE YOUR FRIENDS!

Paid for by the Greene County Republican Party | James Schmidt Treasurer | 63 1/2 E Main St | Xenia | OH | 45385

Sigh…who in Hades is running the Banana Republic in Columbus?  Oh, I forgot…another flipping DeWine.  Also, I’m tired of “the establishment” frat boys opining how “Mike DeWine used to be a ‘tough little prosecutor.’”  Excuse me if I don’t consider them competent discerners of anything “tough.”

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  I personally resent DeWine spending his millions to shove himself back down everyone’s throat when that money could help edify much stronger but lesser-known candidates (are you listening Jon Husted)

I strongly second the motion to support Dave Yost, whose intellectual horsepower is much more up to par with the strongest candidates on the 2010 ticket (Mary Taylor, Josh Mandel & John Kasich).

As I was making my daily “call to DC,” I had to stop and think about all that is on the table.  I came up with the following script (list), although I’m sure I’ve missed a couple…

“Hi, please advise Senator Cantsayno to vote…

1. No on anything resembling Crap & Trade
2. No on anything resembling socialized healthcare
3. No on the RIDICULOUS hate crimes legislation
4. No on any type of 2nd Amendment restrictions
5. HECK NO on the radical racist judge and
6. HECK NO on card check.

Because like every other tried & failed liberal idea, all of these policies will ensure the very opposite of what they ostensibly want to achieve.

Thank you for your time and while I won’t be surprised if the Senator votes the wrong way on all of these, I in turn know that he won’t be suprised when we replace him next election.  Have a great day.”

Contact your senators here and call the DC offices for maximum effectiveness when votes are coming up.

“Enlightened men will not always be at the helm.”  ~James Madison, Federalist No. 10

If for no other reasons than Drudge linked to the post and Keith Olbermann is trying to run interference.

From yesterday’s WorldNetDaily:

Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez
Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama’s birthplace

Posted: July 14, 2009
9:53 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

…A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.

…”As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a ‘natural-born citizen,’ he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief,” he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

“[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections,” he said.

The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.

…[Cook] said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him “something is amiss.”

“That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody,” he said. “Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.

“You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth,” he said.

…He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.

Update: Guess the DoD has “compelled the termination” of the plaintiff. How predictably rich.  It’s a $7 document Barry, given the billions being funneled to Acorn via your porkulous boondoggle, can’t one of their thugs buy or make a counterfeit?  Zheesh.

So much for Dems loving the republic “for which it stands.”

Dear depraved ingrates, if you don’t like this country, we have wide-open borders out which you can march your fat, sorry backsides…

Shocking video of NY Democrats sitting through the Pledge of Allegiance

Note: Frequent commenter and friend of BizzyBlog Joseph Crea has assembled a column that deserves wide notice. I am glad, thanks to the residual traffic from yesterday’s Instalanche at another post, to provide it.

Joe is, I believe, the first person to coin the term “Democrat effect” to describe what happens, and has happened, to the economy when leftists first control Congress and then the entire federal government.

The earliest BizzyBlog comment that I could find from Joe containing his term is here from September 2007. That comment, which foretold the seriousness of the impending Democrat-inspired economic calamity we now endure, preceded your truly’s resoundingly vindicated recognition of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy, now the POR Recession/”Repression” as Normal People Define It, by about 10 months.

So take heed, and read on.

*  *  *  *  *  *

Reform health care culture and politics first

Health care has been politicized such that many are convinced that the disease — misaligned social, market, and regulatory structures — can be cured by treating the symptom, high costs. When people speak of the need for “health care reform,” what they usually mean is “cheaper” and “government-run.” This is akin to treating lung cancer with cough medicine on the advice of Phillip Morris.

One quick test to evaluate whether with whom you are speaking has any clue about reforming the U.S. health care system is to evaluate their arguments. If they use any variation of the following myths (PDF), they have no idea what they’re talking about:

1. The U.S. spends twice as much per capita on health care yet our system is ranked 37^th in outcomes. In reality, disparities in commonly cited nonspecific health outcomes–infant mortality, lifespan, etc.–have less to do with the health care system or how it is financed than the cultural, demographic, and genetic characteristics of the population it serves and the way the statistics are defined, collected, and reported. For example, when adjusted for violent crime and accidents, the U.S. life expectancy is actually the highest in the world.

2. Medicare’s administrative costs are only 2% compared to 20% in the private insurance market. This myth of government efficiency–an oxymoron–that perpetuates a false confidence in federally-imposed health care long since have been debunked. What the Medicare overhead calculation obscures is how efficient any insurer could appear if it only offered one product for one market segment in which everyone was mandated to buy it; which was prepaid and collected by someone else under penalty of law; reimbursed only 80% of a provider’s cost; did not have to survive solely on premia, investments, or make a profit; did not have to obey the various state regulations, but instead set its own rules; could not be sued; and much of its overhead functions, debt, and debt service were absorbed by its competitors and various other federal and state agencies. That is Medicare; and despite these advantages, this system is broke, and has been mismanaged to the tune of trillions in unfunded liabilities! In actuality, the cost-shifting of Medicare and Medicaid to private payers is 2½ times that due to the uninsured! Yet this is the system that is being held out as the model for the U.S. system of the future.

3. Markets don’t work in health care. On the contrary, market-based solutions work well in health care. The reasons are competition, price transparency, and consumerism. One example is conventional Lasik surgery where the price has decreased 30%+ in real terms with high satisfaction. Another example is medical tourism whereby mostly private providers in other countries offer medical procedures in accredited facilities at lower cost with equal or better outcomes. Because of this, many U.S. health insurance companies have or are considering programs to cover medical care abroad. Even the competition aspects of Medicare Part D have brought down premiums one-third from expected.

The way to think of health care systems is like cars. Those that want government-run health care are trying to advance the argument: “Why does a Mercedes E-350 cost so much more than a VW Beetle? They’re both cars!” This would almost be a reasonable argument if a Beetle health care system was acceptable to consumers, politicians, and trial lawyers in the U.S.

Health care reform is a cultural and political problem more than a medical or economic one. In Canada and Europe, they are getting no frills Beetle that gets you from A to B 90% of the time. That’s why their systems are cheaper, but that wouldn’t fly here. The American culture expects (or has been conditioned to demand) the best possible care (decreasing benefit) as soon as possible (increasing cost) paid by someone else (employer or government) and sues if the outcome isn’t acceptable (defensive medicine).

All health care systems ration care; but the results of rationing—more inconvenience, worse outcomes, and less choices–employed in more socialized systems would not stand in the U.S. Managed care cut costs well in the mid-1990’s. Real growth in per capita health care spending was cut in half with equivalent quality. However, politicians to this day decry the rationing practices that made it possible–gatekeepers, denials, and limited choices–yet hail as exemplary the more socialized systems for which these same practices are critical. If they were too problematic and impersonal for American culture then; what makes them agreeable now? If all we want is cheaper, the health care expectations of Americans (and trial lawyers) will need to change; but if we want better, it’s government policies that need to change.

Most government-run health care financing schemes in social democracies function because the citizens accept long wait times, high taxes, and the foregoing of marginally better but more expensive treatments as part of their social contract. Canada’s socialized health care financing system (insurance is a misnomer) is a point of pride; whereas, the U.K.’s true socialized system–government-run everything–is openly derided. Canada has  two significant advantages, however: those that choose not to accept prolonged waits for timely access to commonly available care can come to the States relatively easily; and it also can free ride off of our pharmaceutical and biomedical R&D and military. The latter is what allows the E.U. systems, both health care and economic, to function at all.

True health care reform is being inhibited by trying to force the square pegs of government and politics through the round holes of culture and economics. In order to fit, the corners will need to be carved by eliminating the general deadweight loss from government pass-throughs and redundant state and federal regulations along with tort reform. This would decrease the compliance costs and allow standardization, which would free up capital for health information technology and its efficiencies without assaulting the American culture.

Two good first steps would be to allow health insurance to be bought and sold across state lines and tax equity for individuals who buy nonemployer-base covergage. A third would be to set up an evidence-based “loser-pays” tort system for medical products and services. These reforms alone would decrease costs and free up the necessary resources (i.e. capital) for real system reform. Likewise, portability, competition, and consumerism would be promoted. The ultimate results would be lower costs for businesses, lower premiums for all, a decrease in the uninsured, and a higher-quality, cost-effective health care system.

Now that’s reform.

____________________________________________

UPDATE, July 17: On Thursday, Kurt at FundMastery posted Joe’s column with permission. Thanks for the interest.

Noteworthy Net-Worthies (wherein yours truly bravely attempts to restrain the compulsion to put in his 2 cents):

Bizarre — Fox didn’t show what happened to Obama’s All-Star Game pitch, apparently not even in replay. Strike? Ball? Apparently the film exists, as “Yahoo! Sports had a video showing Fox aired a replay with a conventional center-field shot of Obama’s pitch. Commenters noticed that St. Louis Cardinals star Albert Pujols perched in front of home plate to catch a short pitch.” “Someone else” threw a heart-of-the-plate strike in 2001. Update: Reuters has video with slant-, er, bias-, er, less than perfect commentary.

Astute Blogger — “Car Czar Resigns Over Pay-to-Play Scandal.” Steve Rattner’s successor is Ron Bloom, who is described here as “a Harvard Business-trained banker turned United Steelworkers official.” WaPo put its story on Rattner’s resignation on Page A11.

At the Columbus, GA Ledger-Enquirer — “Soldier Balks at Deploying; Says Obama Isn’t President; Says he shouldn’t have to go to Afghanistan because Obama is not a U.S. citizen.” O,M,G Update — “Orders Revoked for Soldier Challenging Prez.” O,M,G Update 2 — Of all people, far-left lib talker Lynn Samuels, according to Brian at Radio Equalizer, has asserted her belief that Obama is lying in the birth certificate matter.

Reuters — “House (health care) bill to hit millionaires with 5.4 pct surtax.”

Blitz — “All Three Nets To Interview Obama About Healthcare Wednesday.”

“Sotomayor …. Incoherent” and gets a bad review from the AP (HT Instapundit).

A USAT Science Fair blog entry asks, ”Could we be wrong about global warming?” – “In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” says oceanographer Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”

In a report meant to cover Uncle Sam’s release of June’s Monthly Treasury Statement, Associated Press reporter Martin Crutsinger went well beyond the wire service’s normally lazy, slanted reporting in this area.

In his report’s apparent final incarnation early Tuesday morning, the AP writer:

• Told us the amount of June’s deficit ($94.3 billion), but didn’t disclose the figures for June’s receipts ($215.4 billion) or “outlays” ($309.7 billion), or how they compared to June of last year. In doing so, he “succeeded” in concealing the accelerating decline in tax collections.
• Didn’t tell us that the past month’s deficit is by far the worst June ever.
• “Forgot,” as he did in May, to tell readers that the deficit would be hundreds of billions of dollars higher if it weren’t for an “accounting change” retroactively put into place by Treasury in April that changed the definition of “outlays.”
• Cited the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as contributors to the deficit situation, while not identifying several other expenditure categories that have been worse offenders by far.
• Found an economist, without dissent, to support the claim that what the Obama administration has done had to be done.

And that doesn’t even count Crutsinger’s Krugmanesque rewrites of the history of the 1930s Depression era and 1990s Japan, or the apparatchik-like tone present in a few of his paragraphs.

Here is relevant verbiage from Crutsinger’s roughly 900-word report (also saved here at host for future reference; letters in parens are mine; some letters are used twice to tie in related items):

The federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time ever and could grow to nearly $2 trillion by this fall, intensifying fears about higher interest rates, inflation and the strength of the dollar.

The deficit has been widened by the huge sum the government has spent to ease the recession, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues. The cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also is a major factor. (D)

….. The Treasury Department said Monday that the deficit in June totaled $94.3 billion (A), pushing the total since the budget year started in October to $1.09 trillion. The administration forecasts that the deficit for the entire year will hit $1.84 trillion in October.

….. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have said the U.S. is committed to bringing down the deficits once the economy and financial sector recover. The Obama administration has set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.

….. Many private economists say the administration had no choice but to take aggressive action (F) during the financial crisis.

“We have a deep recession hammering tax revenues and forcing the government to provide a lot of help to the economy,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “But without this help, the downturn would be even more severe.” (F)

….. Republicans in Congress are seizing on the deficit – and the persistence of the recession – to attack Democrats. (E)

….. The deficit of $1.09 trillion so far this year (C) compares to an imbalance of $285.85 billion through the same period a year ago. The deficit for the 2008 budget year, which ended Sept. 30, was $454.8 billion, the current record in dollar terms. (C)

Revenues so far this year total $1.59 trillion, down 17.9 percent from a year ago, reflecting higher unemployment, which cuts into payroll taxes and corporate tax receipts. (B)

Readers are probably starting to see how difficult it is to criticize an AP report like this. Crud like what Crutsinger is throwing around literally pervades the report, including many non-excerpted paragraphs. It almost takes a dissertation to rebut it. Even then, there are still a few scraps of crud left on the table due to lack of space.

I’ll take the bolded items in the excerpt in alphabetical order.

(A) – Yes, the June deficit was $94.3 billion,, and Crutsinger did communicate a clear sense of alarm. But he avoided disclosing any other monthly figures for June 2009 and 2008 that could have given readers a fuller context:

Perhaps Crutsinger went no further than revealing the June deficit because the stark difference between June 2009 and the previous June is downright frightening. June 2009 clearly shows the worst June deficit ever. It’s also the first June deficit in well over a dozen years (traditionally, June is a month for heavy collections of individual and corporate estimated payments). Every June result available in HTML format online, going back to 1997 (2008 and 2007; 2006 and 2005; 2004 and 2003; 2002 and 2001; 2000 and 1999; 1998 and 1997) shows a substantial reported surplus. A number of Junes prior to that going back to 1981 (go to the Monthly Treasury Statement home page for the PDF and Excel links) show nominal deficits, the largest being June 1991′s $11.1 billion.

(B) – By only telling us year-to-date “revenues” (on what planet? — What Uncle Sam takes in is “receipts” or “collections”; businesses earn “revenues”), Crutsinger masked how much the deterioration in collections has accelerated in recent months. Receipts for the year may be down “only” 17.9% (and that’s if you treat last year’s stimulus payments as negative receipts, which is in my opinion incorrect); but in the past three months, even as the government mis-defines receipts, the shortfall has been even worse (figures that follow are in billions):

- April, May, and June 2008 (billions) — $404 + $124 + $260 = $788
- April, May, and June 2009 (billions) — $267 + $117 + $215 = $599

That’s an astonishing drop of over 25% ($199 divided by $788), during the government’s most important collections quarter (because it contains two months where estimated payments are due, as well as the April 15 filing and final-payment deadline). Go here to see how the situation is really even worse if you more correctly look at receipts from economic activity and ignore 2008′s stimulus payments.

(C) - This one is so pathetic it’s comical. Crutsinger pretending that last year’s deficit is still “the current record” is like telling everyone that professional baseball player Mark McGwire held “the current record” for home runs in a season of 70 (set in 1998) until the end of the 2001 season, not until October 5, 2001, when Barry Bonds hit his 71st round-tripper. Crutsinger is only right if the government …. (excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing …. I can barely get up …. phew) …. runs a $632 billion surplus (the current deficit of $1.086 trillion minus last year’s deficit of $454.8 billion) during the remaining three months of the year. Yeah, it could happen …. Martin, you’re killin’ me.

Beyond that, Crutsinger “forgot” to tell readers that the deficit would be roughly a couple of hundred billion dollars worse if it weren’t for the fact that the Treasury Department decided retroactively in April to account for its “investments” and “loans” to financial institutions, auto companies, parts suppliers and others on a “Net Present Value” basis instead of as immediate outlays (this is why I frequently put “outlays” in quotes). Without that change, the deficit would have crossed the $1 billion threshold one or two months earlier. The government’s justification for that treatment in what is supposed to be a cash-flow report without also reporting on a true cash-flow basis elsewhere is very thin.

Additionally, Treasury should have written off some of its disbursements to Chrysler and General Motors by now. From all appearances, it hasn’t. If Treasury did this, under its convoluted “Net Present Value” treatment, it would have to report write-offs as part of “outlays.” A detailed explanation of “Net Present Value” treatment is here. As I noted a month ago (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), in his report on May’s deficit, Crutsinger also failed  to comment on the 2009 accounting change.

(D) – Comedian Crutsinger’s runner-up one-liner is the claim that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are big deficit contributors. This doesn’t pass the stench test, let alone the smell test. Here are the details (see Table 3 at the Monthly Treasury Statement):

• Total defense spending through the first nine months of this year is $473 billion, up $33 billion, or 7%, from last year.
• The following departments have bigger year-over-year increases AND higher percentage increases than those seen in Defense — HHS ($68 billion, 13%), Labor ($51 billion, 124% [not a typo]), and the Social Security Administration ($53 billion, 11%).
• The following other departments have increases of $10 billion or more that are up by double digits over last year — Agriculture ($17 billion, 24%), HUD ($12 billion, 32%), and Other Independent Agencies ($29 billion, 240% [not a typo]).

Crutsinger’s single-out of the wars as “a major factor,” and his accompanying failure to identify other more obvious problem areas other than in the vaguest of terms, is really weak, and would appear to betray an anti-military bias.

(E) – This is the apparently mandatory “mean, bullying Republicans go after helpless, well-meaning, angelic Democrats” line the establishment media seems always to employ. When Democrats attack, even personally and viciously, they are “criticizing,” or “objecting.” When Republicans and conservatives raise their voices, it’s virtually always reported as an “attack.” It got really old a really long time ago.

(F) – This is an Obama-like,  straw-man, “it’s better than nothing” argument Crutsinger apparently sought out from an “expert.” Note how the AP reporter did not report a contrary point of view. I guess we’re supposed to think there isn’t one — unless it’s coming from a mean, bullying Republican.

The one major item I haven’t addressed is Crutsinger’s invocation of the “failures to do more,” i.e., embark on ever more reckless government spending, under FDR in the US in the 1930s and in Japan during the 1990s, as reasons why those two economic difficulties persisted for so long. That’s been busted by so many people in so many ways from so many angles that after initially looking to go after it, I decided it would be a waste of time.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Noteworthy Net-Worthies:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial howl about the House’s plans to radically increase taxes is fine to a point, but it really doesn’t go far enough.

Their quickie chart is on the right.

It cannot be emphasized enough (and it’s hardly emphasized at all) that, for example, a rate increase from 35% to 46%, as would occur if the House Democrats get their way, would be a 31.4% tax increase in marginal taxes paid, NOT 11%. Out of each additional $100 in taxable income above $280,000, the victims would have to pay $46 instead of $35. That’s 31% ($11 divided by $35) more dollars paid.

Another thing that can’t be emphasized enough (and it’s almost never brought up) is that the effect on what the “the (not really very) rich” can take home is way above the 11% tax-rate increase. If federal income tax was the only tax in existence (dream on), a person whose marginal rate has increased from 35% to 46% would be taking home $54 out of every additional $100 in taxable income instead of $65. That’s a 17% decrease ($11 divided by $65).

More elaboration, and more dramatic numbers, are on the way in the form of a Pajamas Media column in the works.

______________________________________________________________

What is remarkable about tax proposals like the one just noted is how relatively few people are expected to fund government programs, while everyone else gets a virtually free ride. It’s as if:

• “The (not really very) rich” have no other purpose in life but to do that.
• They won’t resent it even a little bit.
• They won’t react adversely in any way, and will cheerfully cough up the expected boodle.

(begin sarcasm)

I guess their assumption that people don’t change their behavior is right, because as shown yesterday, federal tax collections from economic activity in the second quarter of this year came in almost 31% below the first quarter of last year, even though the economy shrunk about 4% in the previous four quarters. That proves that people don’t react negatively to adverse real or promised government actions.

(/sarcasm)

The economy will have shrunk 4% or less in the past year if 2nd quarter GDP growth comes in at an annualized -3.5% or better. Near the end of this Bloomberg report, economists surveyed by the news service in June, before the latest employment report, predicted an annualized -2.0%.

My gut is telling me that very tepid growth will occur in the the third quarter IF (haha) Congress doesn’t ruin things further. If such a mini-recovery occurs, the American people will deserve all of the credit, because no discernible action by the Obama administration will have caused it.

That said, my guess (and I should emphasize that it’s a guess, because it’s almost impossible to factor in how deeply pervasive the negative psychology is among those who have the biggest effect on the economy), is that the second quarter will come in a bit worse than Bloomberg’s economists believed in June.

___________________________________________________________

You don’t say (HT Instapundit) — “President Barack Obama’s economic forecasts for long-term growth are too optimistic, many economists warn, a miscalculation that would mean budget deficits will be much higher than the administration is now acknowledging.”

Keep in mind that if receipts are down 31%, as noted earlier, it would take a 45% increase (100 divided by 69) to get back to even-steven. The Bush tax cuts increased federal receipts by 44% — and that took 4-1/2 years. That’s even before considering the out-of-control federal spending situation.

Obama’s out-year predictions are for 4% growth. While I’ll admit that it’s more likely — but only because it will be coming off of a shrunken base thanks to the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) “Repression” — the fact remains that annual growth has only hit 4% or above eight times in the past 30 years (1983, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1994, 1997, 1998, and 1999). All of those performances were pre-Sarbanes/Oxley, and all but 1994 were the result of meaningful tax cuts (Reagan’s in the 1980s and the capital gains cut of 1997).

From Wichita, Kansas:

July 3, 2009 / 12:00 pm

Considering the beatification of the Servant of God Fr. Emil Kapaun (pictured at right), a Vatican investigation has found enough evidence of a miracle in the unexplained recovery of a young man who broke his skull in a near-fatal athletic accident. The man’s mother and her family had prayed for the intercession of the heroic U.S. Army chaplain.

Andrea Ambrosi, a lawyer and investigator for the Vatican, on Friday visited family members and the doctors of two Wichita-area families who believe the survival of their children during near-lethal medical crises should qualify as miracles.

One meeting involved Chase Kear (pictured at left), a 20-year-old athlete from Colwich severely injured in an October pole-vaulting accident, the Wichita Eagle reports.

Fr. John Hotze, judicial vicar for the Diocese of Wichita and also episcopal delegate for Fr. Kapaun’s cause, was not allowed to say who or what families are being alleged for miracles, but he did report there was another “alleged miracle” in the Wichita area which Ambrosi examined in his time there.

Ambrosi met with the doctors involved and studied medical reports and X-rays.

“Afterward, the Vatican investigator said that in years of investigating miracles, he had never seen doctors who made such a compelling case for miracles occurring,” Fr. Hotze said.

Chase Kear’s pole-vaulting accident fractured his skull from ear to ear and caused some bleeding on his brain. Doctors told his parents Paul and Paula Kear that they “didn’t have a lot of hope” for their son, stating he would likely die either in surgery to remove the damaged piece of his skull or from a post-surgery infection.

Family and friends joined in petitions to Fr. Kapaun. Chase survived the surgery and walked out of the hospital only a few weeks out of the accident. Doctors were unable to explain the recovery, which many believed to be miraculous.

Paula Kear, Chase’s mom, told the Wichita Eagle about Ambrosi’s visit, saying “He had a nice long talk with Chase, and I didn’t get the feeling that he thought this was all a lot of malarkey.”

The investigator also met with Chase Kear’s doctors, including neurosurgeon Raymond Grundmeyer, who also considers Kear’s survival a miracle.

Speaking with CNA in a Thursday phone interview, Fr. Hotze said the diocesan phase of the investigation was still underway but had advanced to the point that a postulator could come to investigate.

The relevant doctors gave “favorable responses” to the investigation, were “eager to cooperate” and expressed their belief the investigation was worth pursuing.

“There was no medical reason for those that were healed the way that they were,” Fr. Hotze added. ….

Go here for the rest of the story.

More on Father Emil Kapaun’s life and heroism is here.

July 14: Welcome Instapundit readers. The host seems to have bogged down a bit, but seems to be back (grrr ….). Remember that comments are moderated. I have two somewhat-related posts and a PJM column I’m trying to get through.

Related, from July 12 at BizzyBlog, July 10 at Pajamas Media (in both cases BEFORE the release of the June 2009 Monthly Treasury Statement — “With Obamanomics, We’re Not Even $eeing Green.”

__________________________________________

Summarizing the past quarter’s receipts after the release of today’s Monthly Treasury Statement:

Receipts, which I had estimated would be $230 billion in June, came in at $215.4 billion. O…M…G.

Just to be clear, last year’s $866.7 billion above excludes about $78 billion in stimulus payments, which were treated (incorrectly, in my opinion) as negative receipts. Regardless of their treatment, they had nothing to do with tax collections from economic activity during the quarter. This year’s second-quarter receipts on the valid “economic activity” measurement came in almost 31% lower than last year.

More on this, and the deficit, later tonight.

_________________________________________

UPDATE, 11 p.m. — The AP’s Martin Crutsinger outdid himself in sloppiness and deception in his report on the deficit and his Meltdown 101 Q&A. It’s too much to get to this late at night. We’ll have at it tomorrow.

Just know that the June deficit of $94 billion is a record for the month of June by miles and miles (every June from 2008 back to 1997 shows a surplus) — and, as explained previously, effective in April of this year, retroactive to October 2008, it doesn’t even include all outlays any more.

Somebody at the Columbus Dispatch has a bit of explaining to do.

Perhaps the Dispatch should engage one of those “real journalists” Ted Diaduin at the Cleveland Plain Dealer claims to have in abundant supply.

You see, Ohio Governor’s former Director of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives, one Robert “Eric” McFadden, after “years” of not getting caught, pleaded guilty last Thursday of two felonies for trying to market the “services” of a 17 year-old prostitute. Yes, a 17 year-old.

In his original report late Thursday morning on McFadden’s plea — a report no longer available at the paper’s web site even though it is listed at a relevant site search (last item listed; screen cap is here for later reference) — the Dispatch’s Bruce Cadwallader gave a barely adequate description of the facts and circumstances surrounding both McFadden’s day job and the double life that he had been leading “for years” up to his arrest in January.

But in his early-AM Friday report, which I have confirmed with a Dispatch representative is the one that went into the paper’s July 10 print edition, Cadwallader “somehow” left out the “for years” reference, giving readers a clear and incorrect impression that McFadden had only recently begun his illicit activities.

How convenient.

Here are key passages from Cadwallader’s original report (currently found in Google cache; saved here at my host for future reference) that, in the limited space available, at least tried to give readers a halfway reasonable idea of McFadden’s resume and activities:

Former state official pleads guilty to pimping charges
Robert E. McFadden ran Ohio’s faith-based initiative
Thursday, July 9, 2009 11:24 AM

A former director of Gov. Ted Strickland’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative pleaded guilty this morning to two felony counts after police said he tried to pimp a 17-year-old prostitute.

Robert E. McFadden, 46, …. pleaded guilty to two counts of compelling prostitution for computer activity he conducted between September and October last year. Five other counts of pandering obscenity and promoting prostitution were dismissed.

The pleas in Franklin County Common Pleas Court could land McFadden in prison for as long as 10 years.

….. Prosecutors said McFadden, who is free on bond, took photographs of the girl he met on an Internet chat room and then offered her services to other men on the site as a “recommended” prostitute.

Columbus vice detectives monitoring online discussions among clients of prostitutes for years said McFadden posted under the names “Sullivant Guy,” “Broad Street Guy,” “Toby” and “God O Thunder.”

Like many others on the sites, McFadden traded information about street hookers and online escorts. He would recommend some prostitutes, issue warnings about others and give advice on ways to avoid law enforcement.

Columbus police learned of the activity during an online sex sting in January.

….. McFadden, a former field director for a Catholic organization, was hired by Strickland in 2007 to lead the Faith-Based office at $36 an hour and encouraged to make it easier for such organizations to compete for public funding.

He was later transferred to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, but was laid off due to budget cuts.

Cadwallader’s write-up about 16 hours later that went into the paper’s print edition was more than a little airbrushed. Here are the first two paragraphs:

EX-STATE OFFICIAL
‘God O Thunder’ admits he was pimp
Friday, July 10, 2009 3:08 AM

His attorneys tried to suppress a search warrant of his home and tried to get his indictment dismissed on a technicality. But in the end, former state director Robert E. McFadden admitted yesterday to pimping a 17-year-old prostitute on the Internet.

McFadden, the former director of Gov. Ted Strickland’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative, pleaded guilty to two felony counts after police said he put nude photographs of the girl on a Web site to promote prostitution.

You’d think the guy almost beat the rap and is getting excessively punished for posting a couple of pics.

But it’s the noticeable omission from the following paragraph in the print story that is really hard to understand, and in my opinion impossible to defend:

Columbus police learned of the activity during an online sex sting in January. McFadden used aliases such as “Sullivant Guy,” “Broad Street Guy” and “God O Thunder,” police said.

Whatever happened to “for years”?

Only Bruce Cadwallader and his editors at the Dispatch can tell us why those two words or equivalents weren’t important to readers. But it’s pretty obvious who the omission, along with the demonstrated scrubbing of the reporter’s original report, helps.

First, it helps Hillary Clinton. According to the American Catholic (HT Say Anything), McFadden was “head of the Catholic outreach of the Clinton campaign last year.” Ouch. That’s last year, well within the realm of the Dispatch’s convenient “for years” omission. The paper appears unconcerned that it has kept the vast majority of its readers in the dark about this association.

Second, it helps Ohio Governor Ted Strickland (imagine that). Including “for years” in the print and surviving web report might have given readers the absolutely correct impression that McFadden was conducting his illegal business while still a state employee at the Ohio Department of Corrections (from October 2007 – March 2008), and before that, during his time as Strickland’s personally appointed faith-based Director (from February – August 2007). “For years,” going back from the time of McFadden’s January 2009 arrest, would put him in the business beginning in early 2007 at the very latest. It would appear that the Dispatch, by removing an originally useful time tag, would prefer that its readers not know that.

Of course, there is a strong likelihood that “for years” involves at least a couple more than two. If so, that would certainly mean that McFadden was in the prostitution business in mid- to late-2006 as either a consumer, a pimp, or both during his tenure with …. (wait for this) …. the ultra-liberal and actually heretical Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

McFadden was the Alliance’s Ohio Field Director during a substantial portion of 2006. In an August 13, 2006 Dispatch article about religion and liberal politics, McFadden, who at the time went by “Eric” (why the first name change, buddy?), stated that:

….. he has been dismayed to see his faith “co-opted by the religious right.”

The late Pope John Paul II condemned the Iraq war repeatedly, McFadden pointed out, yet the political debate two years ago focused largely on outlawing abortion and same-sex marriage.

“During the election cycle in 2004, our Catholic values were whittled down to four or five issues that were nonnegotiable,” McFadden said. “We want to bring other issues into the discussion.”

Anyone who knows anything about the Catholic faith knows that faithful Catholics are expressly forbidden from supporting and voting for pro-abortion candidates, regardless of their other positions on issues of war and “social justice.”

Apparently, the Dispatch isn’t concerned that readers won’t understand that McFadden was very likely active in his other life while he was with the pretend-Catholic Alliance.

Go back far enough, and you learn that McFadden was, again according to the American Catholic, the founder of Catholics for Kerry (apparently not directly associated with the John Kerry’s presidential campaign, if this book excerpt from Amy Sullivan’s “The Party Faithful” is to be believed). Depending on how far back “for years” really goes, McFadden might have been involved with prostitution back then. But the Dispatch apparently didn’t think it was important that its readers know about that either.

Readers of the Dispatch’s Friday print report who are otherwise unversed in the McFadden saga will have the absolutely incorrect impression that McFadden’s activities began in the fall of last year, months after he left the State of Ohio’s payroll.

In October 2006, as Robert Eric McFadden was more than likely in the midst of a years-long side business as the self-described “guru” of Columbus prostitution while “faithfully” serving Democratic Party interests, the national press obsessed for weeks over a Republican Congressman who resigned “after being confronted with salacious e-mails and instant messages he sent to underage, male congressional pages.”

We can definitely “dispatch” with the question of whether there has been a press double standard in the treatment of Mark Foley and Robert Eric McFadden.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

________________________________________

UPDATE: An NB Commenter found this handy Ohio org chart from Hillary Clinton’s campaign currently residing at George Washington University. It is partially depicted below –

Ted Strickland was an early supporter of Hillary. I wonder if he’s the one who got McFadden his position. If so, why?