Earlier this year, in his “Can we lose health coverage? Yes we can” column, syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock made a point asserted in dozens if not hundreds of columns and reports during the hide-and-seek legistlative process that ultimately led to the passage of what is commonly known as ObamaCare: The President’s core promise relating to the statist health care legislation that ultimately became law in March — namely that “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what” — could not and would not be kept.

In that column, Murdock quoted Cato Institute analyst Michael Cannon as follows:

“Obama’s definition of ‘meaningful’ coverage could eliminate the health plans that now cover as many as half of the 159 million Americans with employer-sponsored insurance, plus more than half of the roughly 18 million Americans in the individual market. … This could compel close to 90 million Americans to switch to more comprehensive health plans with higher premiums, whether they value the added coverage or not.”

In a late Friday afternoon blog post followed by a fuller early evening report, David Hogberg and Sean Higgins at Investors Business Daily confirmed that Obama’s never-credible core promise is on the brink of being shattered, and that the employer-related calculations by Cato’s Cannon were essentially correct (graphically illustrated by IBD at the top right):

Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare.

Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans.

The “midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013,” according to the document.

In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law.

…. The 83-page document, a joint project of the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the IRS, examines the effects that ObamaCare’s regulations would have on existing, or “grandfathered,” employer-based health care plans.

Draft copies of the document were reportedly leaked to House Republicans during the week and began circulating Friday morning. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., posted it on his Web site Friday afternoon.

… In a statement, Posey said the document showed that the arguments in favor of ObamaCare were a “bait and switch.”

… (A White House) source conceded: “It is difficult to predict how plans and employers will behave in the coming years, but if plans make changes that negatively impact consumers, then they will lose their grandfather status.”

… In total, 66% of small businesses and 47% of large businesses made a change in their health care plans last year that would have forfeited their grandfathered status.

When one looks at the list of what would cause a plan to get de-grandfathered compiled by Hogberg and Higgins, it’s easy to see why the percentages are so large.

The referenced Treasury document (an 83-page PDF) lays out how employers might react to the new law on Page 36:

Plan sponsors and issuers can decide to:

1. Continue offering the plan or coverage in effect on March 23, 2010 with limited changes, and thereby retain grandfathered status;

2. Significantly change the terms of the plan or coverage and comply with Affordable Care Act provisions from which grandfathered health plans are excepted; or

3. In the case of a plan sponsor, cease to offer any plan.

Option 1 would be nice, but as the IBD reporters noted in the bolded paragraph in the excerpt above, most employers would have run afoul of it during the past year. This means that they would have been forced into Options 2 or 3. Employers choosing Option 2 would have to buy pre-designed and very expensive coverage through the bill’s health insurance exchanges. Employers choosing Option 3 would force their employees to buy pre-designed and very expensive coverage through those same exchanges.

If the legislation stands, the end result over a not very long time will be that the large majority of employers and employees will be stuck in the exchanges, the roach motels of health care — Once you go in, you can’t come out. Statist mission accomplished.

The Associated Press has noticed the story too, but with the weakest of headlines: “Health overhaul to force changes in employer plans.” The content isn’t much better. Earth to AP reporter Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar: ObamaCare, as predicted by so many during the previous year by experts most of the establishment press willfully ignored, will cause many employers to drop their insurance entirely.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

From the Indian Ocean and Thousand Oaks, California:

16-year-old feared lost at sea is found alive in Indian Ocean

Searchers flying over the Indian Ocean made contact early this morning with the teenage American girl feared lost at sea attempting a solo sail around the world in a 40-foot boat.

Abby Sunderland, miraculously, was alive and well.

They spotted the 16-year-old’s boat in an upright position in a remote and treacherous section of the ocean off Madagascar and spoke to her by radio.

The intrepid young sailor told them she was inside her disabled boat and doing fine, with a space heater and enough food to last her at least two weeks.

Family spokesman William Bennett, speaking outside the family’s Thousand Oaks, Cal., home, said the mast had broken off the sailboat, the “Wild Eyes.”

“The plane arrived on the scene moments ago,” her joyful parents wrote on their blog just after 2:30 a.m. New York time.

“Wild Eyes is upright, but her rigging is down. The weather conditions are abating.

“Radio communication has been made and Abby reports that she is fine!”

They said a fishing boat from the French island of Reunion was diverted to the scene and would be there in a little more than 24 hours. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

The establishment press is either getting tired of being beaten up over using the U-word (“unexpectedly,” or sometimes “unexpected”) to the point of excess when economic news disappoints, or has itself wearied of using the word.

Here’s the Associated Press’s Martin Crutsinger on today’s retail sales report letdown, courtesy of the Commerce Department. The bolded sentence below is Crutsinger’s substitute for the U-Word:

Retail sales plunged in May by the largest amount in eight months as consumers slashed spending on everything from cars to clothing. The big drop raises new worries about the durability of the economic recovery.

The Commerce Department says that spending fell 1.2 percent last month. Auto sales were down 1.7 percent but there was weakness in a number of areas. Excluding autos, sales fell 1.1 percent.

The big decline cast new doubts about the strength of the economic recovery. Consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of total economic activity.

… The 1.2 percent decline in May sales was the largest decline since sales had fallen 2.2 percent in September. Analysts had been forecasting sales would be weak but remain in positive territory.

For May, the 1.7 percent drop in auto sales followed a 0.6 percent increase in April sales and was the poorest showing in this category since a 2.5 percent February decline.

Expecting a slight positive and getting a large negative is what I would call a “big miss.”

The auto sales drop may be suspect, because it’s not consistent with direct sales data from the car companies earlier this month.

But there is a clue to how to reconcile the conflict in this statement at the link: “GM sales rose 17 percent, led by a jump in sales of its four remaining brands – Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac – and big orders from fleet customers, such as rental car agencies.”

Fleet sales are not part of consumer spending. If those orders were big enough, it may really be that individual and families were buying fewer vehicles in May. That’s a big “uh-oh,” because fleet sales aren’t particularly profitable, and they may not be sustainable at current levels.

That fleet sales and not direct consumer sales might be driving what growth there is in vehicle sales this year (especially, I believe, at government wards GM and Chrysler, and not so much at other companies) is consistent with my observation last week at this post about the “private investment – transportation equipment” sector’s outsized contribution to first-quarter GDP growth.

Until “analysts” figure out how to incorporate FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) into their estimates (admittedly difficult, but they get paid to estimate these things), you can expect that the “unexpected” will “unexpectedly” continue to occur — even if the press stops using the words.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Following up on the biggest whopper in the Universe of Health Care Lies —

President Obama said this on July 6, 2009:

“Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you,” the president told residents of the Garden State. “First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.”

This has never been true, and certainly has never been the intent.

The first step in outlawing the private insurance market will arrive shortly (HT to commenter dscott):

Part of the health care overhaul due to kick in this September could strip more than 1 million people of their insurance coverage, violating a key goal of President Barack Obama’s reforms.

Under the provision, insurance companies will no longer be able to apply broad annual caps on the amount of money they pay out on health policies. Employer groups say the ban could essentially wipe out a niche insurance market that many part-time workers and retail and restaurant employees have come to rely on.

This market’s limited-benefit plans, also called mini-med plans, are priced low because they can, among other things, restrict the number of covered doctor visits or impose a maximum on insurance payouts in a year. The plans are commonly offered by retail or restaurant companies to low-wage workers who cannot afford more expensive, comprehensive coverage.

Depending on how strictly the administration implements the provision, the ban could in effect outlaw the plans or make them so restrictive that insurance companies would raise rates to the point they become unaffordable.

My reax is that if the law says that’s what the law says is supposed to happen, that’s what Obama, Pelosi and Reid want to have happen. A million or so people who have “got health insurance” aren’t going to be able to keep it.

The second step targets seniors with Medicare Advantage plans:

“First and foremost,” President Obama told seniors on Tuesday in Wheaton, Maryland, “what you need to know is that the guaranteed Medicare benefits that you’ve earned will not change, regardless of whether you receive them through Medicare or Medicare Advantage.” First and foremost, nothing about that sentence is true.

Advantage gives almost one of four seniors private insurance options, and Democrats are about to cut its funding by some $136 billion over the next decade even as health costs rise. The Congressional Budget Office says these cuts will cause enrollment to drop by 35%, the Administration’s own Medicare actuaries predict 50%, and both outfits take for granted that benefits will also decline.

The President knows this, so he and his fellow Democrats are gearing up to blame these cuts on . . . insurers, rather than on their own policies.

The only thing “transparent” about this administration is its clear intent, as Investors Business Daily courageously warned nearly a year ago while being subjected to intense criticism and ridicule, to destroy the private insurance market.

I’ve been meaning to get to Arthur Laffer’s Wall Street Journal op-ed since it was published early this week.

He is, of course, spot-on in his points about how folks are reacting and will react to the tax hikes that will kick in starting next year. But I believe (with a lot of “hope” sprinkled in) that what he thinks will result is not as certain as he asserts at the end.

Here are key paragraphs:

… On or about Jan. 1, 2011, federal, state and local tax rates are scheduled to rise quite sharply. President George W. Bush’s tax cuts expire on that date, meaning that the highest federal personal income tax rate will go 39.6% from 35%, the highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. Lots and lots of other changes will also occur as a result of the sunset provision in the Bush tax cuts.

Tax rates have been and will be raised on income earned from off-shore investments. Payroll taxes are already scheduled to rise in 2013 and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be digging deeper and deeper into middle-income taxpayers. And there’s always the celebrated tax increase on Cadillac health care plans. State and local tax rates are also going up in 2011 as they did in 2010. Tax rate increases next year are everywhere.

… (Because of these imminent tax increases, people) will shift production and income out of next year into this year to the extent possible. As a result, income this year has already been inflated above where it otherwise should be and next year, 2011, income will be lower than it otherwise should be.

Also, the prospect of rising prices, higher interest rates and more regulations next year will further entice demand and supply to be shifted from 2011 into 2010. In my view, this shift of income and demand is a major reason that the economy in 2010 has appeared as strong as it has. When we pass the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 2011, my best guess is that the train goes off the tracks and we get our worst nightmare of a severe “double dip” recession.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan—with bipartisan support—began the first phase in a series of tax cuts passed under the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA), whereby the bulk of the tax cuts didn’t take effect until Jan. 1, 1983. Reagan’s delayed tax cuts were the mirror image of President Barack Obama’s delayed tax rate increases. For 1981 and 1982 people deferred so much economic activity that real GDP was basically flat (i.e., no growth), and the unemployment rate rose to well over 10%.

But at the tax boundary of Jan. 1, 1983 the economy took off like a rocket, with average real growth reaching 7.5% in 1983 and 5.5% in 1984. It has always amazed me how tax cuts don’t work until they take effect. Mr. Obama’s experience with deferred tax rate increases will be the reverse. The economy will collapse in 2011.

Consider corporate profits as a share of GDP. Today, corporate profits as a share of GDP are way too high given the state of the U.S. economy. These high profits reflect the shift in income into 2010 from 2011. These profits will tumble in 2011, preceded most likely by the stock market.

Addressing the bolded items in order:

• If income is “already inflated above where it otherwise should be,” and tax collections are therefore higher than they otherwise should be, look out below, because tax receipts this year through May are even lower than last year. If these are the “good times,” yikes. Additionally, some of what Uncle Sam is calling “receipts” (in the neighborhood of $30 billion) appears to interest and dividends on TARP “investments” collected by the Fed. These are amounts that have nothing to do with the production of goods and services.
• Laffer’s concern about a double-dip recession is legitimate, and his framing of the concern as his “best guess” is appropriately couched language.
• This a historical point that shouldn’t be forgotten, namely that Tip O’Neil’s “party of compassion”-controlled Congress extended the recession of the early 1980s by objecting to, maneuvering, and delaying Reagan’s supply-side tax cuts. I they would have legislated ASAP with a retroactive effective date of January 1, 1981, the recovery would have started that much sooner. It’s really not arguable that millions of people suffered needlessly in the early 1980s because of Democratic dithering.
• The Pelosi-Obama-Reid tax increases (they will own them, because they could have and should have stopped them, and at least in theory still can) may increase tax receipts slightly, but by nowhere near the static analysis amounts predicted by the Congressional Budget Office. This is what happened in the mid-1990s with the massive tax increases that went into effect (retroactively, you’ll recall) in 1993. Receipts went up, but not as much as expected. Receipts shot up like a rocket after the capital gains tax cut that took effect in 1997, leading temporarily to budget surpluses.
• But I think Laffer’s prediction that “The economy will collapse in 2011″ is intemperate, not consistent with his “best guess” that we will see a severe double-dip recession, and therefore inappropriate. That isn’t to say that a true collapse as the dictionary defines it isn’t possible (sadly, it is), but he has gone from “best guess” to an assertion of certainty without explanation. You don’t need to be a very good guesser to know which of the two is being played up to the point of excess on talk radio.

In sum: Great work, Arthur, but you need to be more careful with your words. If the economy ekes out any kind of growth in 2011, the left won’t remember your prediction of a double-dip recession, they’ll remind everyone that you predicted “collapse.”

From Rome:

Jun 11, 2010 / 03:05 am

The Knights of Columbus are celebrating the 90th anniversary of their presence in Rome by reflecting on the group’s contributions to the city throughout the decades.

One commentator told CNA that although numerous contributions can be attributed to the Knights, the group’s humanitarian work, such as keeping the playgrounds open for children in Rome during World War II, is most notable.

As part of the celebration, the Knights of Columbus introduced an exhibit at Rome’s historically renowned Capitoline Museums on June 9. The exhibit is titled “Everybody welcome, everything free: the Knights of Columbus and Rome, celebrating 90 years of friendship.”

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, thanked the group for their work on Tuesday, saying that throughout their 90-year presence in Rome, the Knights “have worked with particular care in favor of the younger generation by offering opportunities for fun and games, using recreational centers made freely available to parishes, schools, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, institutions for disabled and priestly formation.”

In his commentary during the event, Supreme Knight Carl Anderson explained that the Knights “were invited to this city 90 years ago by Pope Benedict the fifteenth.”

“First in 1918 to briefly run a facility for US Soldiers in World War I,” he noted, and then “on an ongoing basis to help the children of the city by giving them safe places to play sports.”

“Nothing has been able to interfere with that,” Anderson continued. “When the National government tried to close our playgrounds in 1931, the decision did not last because our friendship with the city was bigger than any political differences.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds employed sarcastic irony this morning when he wrote that “Obama’s hate speech is promoting violence against BP.” Well, it’s at least clear that the blame game out of Washington isn’t helping the situation.

Reynolds is referring to a report from TV station WREG in Memphis about an incident involving property damage at a local BP station, and other instances that have occurred in other parts of the country (video is at the link):

Bullets Shatter Glass at BP Gas Station

(Southaven, MS) — Windows at the BP Gas Station on Highway 51 at Custer Drive were shot out overnight. Folks who work at the store believe the suspects were expressing anger over BP and how it’s handling the oil spill.

“I believe that would be the reason,” said Alex Saleh. “We don’t have any enemies.” He said nothing was taken from the store after the windows were destroyed.

Incidents of anger spilling over at locally owned BP gas stations have been reported in several areas. In New York City several BP signs have been vandalized. Owners there believe vandals are filling balloons with dirt then throwing them at the signs.

Stanley Morton posted several clips on YouTube, where he’s seen driving to a BP station, then dumping yard waste on the property.

The report also notes that most BP stations are operated by small business owners, so the wrath is often misdirected.

The tone of President Obama’s and his administration’s rhetoric is also drawing objections across the pond, with serious possibilities of further deterioration in what used to be “the special relationship:

Senior Tories today warned Barack Obama to back off as billions of pounds were wiped off BP shares in the row over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Mayor Boris Johnson demanded an end to “anti-British rhetoric, buck-passing and name-calling” after days of scathing criticism directed at BP by the President and other US politicians.

Former Conservative Party chairman Lord Tebbit branded Mr Obama’s conduct “despicable”. And with the dispute threatening to escalate into a diplomatic row, Mr Johnson also appeared to suggest that David Cameron should step in to defend BP.

He spoke as the US onslaught against the firm became a “matter of national concern” — especially given its importance to British pensions, which lost much of their value today as BP shares plunged to a 13-year low.

British pensions” is a reference to the UK’s Social Security system equivalent, which is primarily based on individuals deciding how their money will be invested. Obviously, many of them, and many mutual funds, have significant BP holdings.

I guess the lesson here is privatized retirement systems don’t work, because irresponsible foreign leaders can wreak havoc on them. (/sarc)

The U.S. press is just beginning to notice that the Brits are really, really unhappy. Here are a couple of paragraphs from a business report this morning (as of 9:58 a.m.; link is dynamic). Note well how others are perceiving the administration’s posture:

The company has found itself caught in a trans-Atlantic squeeze between an angry U.S. administration and unhappy shareholders – some 18 million Britons hold shares or pension funds in the company.

Prime Minister David Cameron’s office said the British leader would discuss the issue with President Barack Obama on a scheduled telephone call over the weekend.

Investors are fretting about the rising costs facing BP after Obama suggested it should also pay unemployment benefits to thousands of oil workers laid off during a moratorium on deep-sea drilling triggered by the spill.

… most market experts also acknowledge that the political rhetoric surrounding the accident is outweighing financial fundamentals.

“We don’t believe BP has a funding issue, but given the overwhelmingly hostile nature of the U.S. government the company may decide to suspend payments until the wells are capped and the clean-up sufficiently advanced to convince the U.S. that it can afford all the costs as well as pay dividends,” said Evolution Securities analyst Richard Griffith. “Unilateral action against BP over its U.S. operations, be it unreasonable or illegal, hangs over BP.”

“Illegal”? Now there’s an angle our watchdog establishment press should pursue — and would be pursuing if a conservative or Republican were in the White House. Don’t hold your breath. This bunch has virtually ignored two known cases of misprision that occurred right under everyone’s nose. That most readers here won’t know what “misprision” is and how it relates to the situation of Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff proves my point.

As to the U.S. economy, nothing feeds the current FUD problem (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) like an administration that continues to sew … fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

(Photo above is from AP/CBS.)

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Zombie is right about Tuesday’s results in the two key statewide California primary elections (“Dinosaurs vs. Zillionaires: Four Depressing Candidates Win in California; In a state with 37 million people, these are the best four we’ve got?”).

To be clear, it’s paramount that Senator Barbara “Don’t Call Me Ma’am” Boxer gets ousted by Carly Fiorina in November, and just as important that Meg Whitman send Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown into political retirement in the gubernatorial contest.

Fiorina and Whitman are the GOP’s general election candidates because the state’s RINO establishment betrayed its sensible conservative base. They have learned nothing from their disastrous embrace of Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003 (I reluctantly thought it was the right decision at the time, but the election results proved that a genuine sensible conservative like Tom McClintock would have won against the pathetic Democratic opposition). Neither of the two will be the disasters Schwarzenegger has been; but they will both require high maintenance, and will still end up delivering heartburn far too often.

Tea Party, constitution-loving conservatives who want to save the Golden State’s Republican Party from itself will have to buckle down and do what their Ohio counterparts are doing to take their party back from ORPINO (the Ohio Republican Party In Name Only): Elect genuine sensible conservatives to party spots at the precinct, county, and state levels, until they have the power to show bums like State GOP Chairman Jerry Nehring, who is determined to “take over the Tea Party or destroy it,” the door.

Temple of Mut, one of those who will be in the Fiorina-Whitman high-maintence brigade, has further commentary on California’s results.

Update: At another recent post, I commented that “A Boxer-Fiorina campaign will be over before it even starts.” Luckily, it won’t really start for a couple of months, during which time Fiorina had better do these things so that when the critiques come, they can be dismissed as old news:

• Convincingly renounce her previous support of the Wall Street bailouts.
• Convincingly renounce her previous support of Cap and Trade.
• Convincingly renounce her previous support of Sonia Sotomayer.
• Convincingly renounce her previous criticism of the new Arizona immigration law.
• Pre-emptively explain her tenure at H-P and her stewardship of her outsized, unearned boodle.

That’s a tall but necessary order. If Fiorina runs and hides from all of this, she will become Barbara Boxer’s punching bag, and it will be over before it starts.

_______________________________________________________

It is way past time that people understand the monster “sexuality pioneer” Alfred Kinsey was, and the kind of damage that is being done to this day based on the “work” that he did.

Before I put out the link, I must WARN readers that the content at it is very disturbing — not just the recap of Kinsey’s sick life and “career,” but also the idea that a supposedly Catholic school has allowed his “work” to be referred to favorably in a publication for its students while promoting sinful actions.

Forewarned, it’s here.

_______________________________________________________

The Wall Street Journal’s Dorothy Rabinowitz, perhaps the best columnist of our time, definitively explained our Punk President’s clearly demonstrated mindset in a save-the-whole-thing op-ed yesterday (bolds are mine):

… it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans’ leader, a man of them, for them, the nation’s voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn’t lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.

… A great part of America now understands that this president’s sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House …

… The president’s appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality.

… It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.

It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face.

… The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.

They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States.

… (Obama is) a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country …

The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.

The country also needs to do everything it can to force its elitist commander-in-chief and his true believers to back away from their destructive agenda.

It’s here.

It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Saturday morning (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.

From New York:

Jun 9, 2010 / 06:11 am

The Catholic League’s efforts to have Blessed Mother Teresa honored on her 100th birthday in the lighting scheme for the Empire State Building continue. The proposal now has the backing of a leading New York City councilwoman, which a Catholic League spokesman was a sign of the famous religious sister’s widespread admiration.

The Catholic organization wanted the building to display blue and white lights, the color of Mother Teresa’s order, on the religious sister’s 100th birthday, but its request was declined by the building’s management.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has voiced support for the effort to honor the beatified woman who served the poor of Calcutta, India.

“The question of why the building will not be lit is a question that deserves answering,” she told The New York Daily News, adding that she thought the lighting scheme should have been approved.

She said she reached out to the ownership of the Empire State Building last week after learning the lighting application had been denied.

“We urged them to try to find a way to light the building,” Quinn continued. “We are all very disappointed.”

She reported that the owners gave no particular reason for refusing the request, calling on them to revisit their decision and “honor this wonderful woman who has given so much to the world.”

Quinn, who is openly homosexual, has stood opposite the Catholic League on issues such as same-sex “marriage” and whether homosexual groups should march in the St. Patrick’s Day parade.

Mother Teresa, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, opened the first hospice for AIDS patients in Greenwich Village.

In a Tuesday phone interview, CNA spoke about the controversy with Jeff Field, director of communications at the Catholic League.

Asked about the success of the organization’s Empire State Building campaign, he reported that the Catholic League’s on-line petition has attracted over 30,000 signatures while another 10,000 Catholic League members have pledged support via direct mail.

The organization has also received letters of support from Indian and U.S. bishops.

People are “fired up” by the controversy, Field added, reporting that some have organized a trip to help protest the Empire State Building. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

In an article published yesterday afternoon, CNBC news associate Joseph Pisani took note of something the rest of the media mostly hasn’t, or at least hasn’t highlighted: the terrible job market for teenagers. The headline and text indicate that this is the worst such market in 41 years. That’s true, based on the stat Pisani presented. But barring a near miracle in the next three months, in terms of the stat that matters most, the unemployment rate, it’s the worst ever.

Give the CNBC reporter props for doing something almost no other journalist has done, which is to use the not seasonally adjusted (NSA) employment numbers as his factual source. As I have discussed several times, including here, the reported NSA numbers represent the government’s best estimate of what really happened in a given month, while the seasonally adjusted (SA) numbers published (and appropriately labeled) by the government and reported (but usually not labeled) by the press represent the result after smoothing out seasonal fluctuations.

Pisani’s prose proceeds as follows:

Teens Face Worst Summer Job Market in 41 Years

The kickoff to the summer job season is not looking so hot for teens.

Employment among 16-to 19-year olds in May grew by just 6,000, the smallest increase since 1969, when teen jobs fell by 14,000, according to government data analyzed by employment firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. In May 2008 and 2009, teen employment grew by over 110,000.

“It’s certainly a preliminary strong indication that it’s going to be a tough job market for teens,” said John Challenger, CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

Jobs traditionally given to teens are apparently going to older workers who are willing to take low paying job to make ends meet. Employment among 20- to 24-year-olds grew by 270,000 in May, an unusual spike, considering that employment in the same age group fell by 261,000 in May 2009.

“Also impacting the job market for young adults are the large number of older adults who are willing to accept even a temporary, seasonal position simply to generate some income,” said Steven Rothberg, chief executive officer of CollegeRecruiter.com, an online entry-level job-posting site.

“We’re seeing experienced candidates taking jobs normally reserved for college grads and college grads taking jobs normally reserved for college students,” said Rothberg.

As noted above, the -6,000 stat and the other monthly figures Pisani cited are from published NSA data (and ultimately from the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics and not Challenger, Gray & Christmas, but I’m quibbling). That is the correct measurement framework to use.

Look at the seasonally adjusted teenage unemployment rate in this graphic, however (using SA numbers is appropriate because the review is over a full-year period), one finds that the average teen unemployment rate in the past 12 months has been 25.95%. The linked graphic goes back to 1948, the earliest available year at the BLS for teen unemployment stats. No other 12-month period going back over 60 years has an average teen unemployment rate of more than 24%.

Perhaps it’s too ambitious an endeavor for his assignment, but the CNBC journalist did not consider the possible impact of the crowding out of teens and other less-skilled workers by illegal immigrants. Another blind spot is his failure to deal with the effects of the artificially high federal minimum wage, as well minimum wages in several states that are even higher than Uncle Sam’s rate.

But at least Pisani noticed the unprecedentedly awful situation, the kind of thing that I daresay would be causing a much bigger stir if a Republican or conservative were currently occupying the White House. A search at the Associated Press’s main site on “teen unemployment” (not in quotes) came back with one relevant result, a short item by the wire service’s Martin Crutsinger that is primarily a just-the-facts listing of key figures from the BLS’s Friday report. A Google News search on “teen unemployment (using quote) sorted by date returns only 53 items, and very few of them are from national outlets. Some of them tout government-sponsored teen “jobs programs”  – sad indeed, given that government policy is primarily what has created the current situation.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

___________________________________________

UPDATE: This post was about press reporting on teen unemployment. For discussion of the minimum wage’s effects on unemployment, go here.

So many stories, so little time:

• Photocropping — LGF catches Reuters, twice (HT Hot Air). “Peace activists”? The wire services continuing to use that term to describe Palestinian flotilla “go back to Auschwitz” provocateurs are insulting our intelligence.
• Sarah Palin explains it all. Sadly, our community organizer-in-chief, who hasn’t even spoken with BP’s CEO (!), probably won’t heed it, or even understand it.
• At the Corner, Mark Steyn thinks the New York Times, “whether through bias or institutional loss of news instincts,” failed to recognize the Helen Thomas’s anti-Israeli anti-Semitic comments as a news story when it went viral. In this case, I think the One Man Global Content Provider is giving the Times too much credit. The Old Gray Lady’s editors knew it was a story, but hoped in vain that they could make it go away by ignoring it. Three decades ago, that worked. No more.
• “Obama Lied, Orca Died” –President Obama wants to lift a 24-year ban on whaling. I can’t explain this one. Maybe he’s just trying to keep us awake.
• Michael Barone has a great column (a redundant term in his case) on “The transformative power of Rick Santelli’s rant.”
• Charlie Crist is ashamed of being pro-life — or maybe he no longer is. He’s surely not a conservative, a Republican, or even a RINO, any more.
• Imagine that — “Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model”
• A supposed media watchdog speaks the truth and cowers, as observed by Mark Hemingway at the Washington Examiner — “Romanoff job offer would have been a bigger deal if Bush had done it — says Washington Post?”
• “May home-buying activity looks worse than expected.”
• Well, at least engaged with something — In an follow-up to his assertion that NBA ticket prices are too high, our president has weighed in on last week’s imperfect perfect game in baseball, saying that “MLB Should Consider More Instant Replay.”
• Speaking of baseball, here’s a great comment about a feel-good night in the nation’s capital — “Nice to see something in Washington finally live up to its hype.”