When a lefty like Mitch Albom gets the insanity that is the Estate Tax, I’m looking up.

From Sunday’s Freep.com:

The clock is ticking: Die now or pay later
BY MITCH ALBOM
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST

… The clock is ticking on free death in America. Last week we saw an amazing example of a good news/sad news scenario.

George Steinbrenner, owner of the Yankees, died of a heart attack at age 80. But by dying in 2010, his family avoided $500 million in estate taxes that it would have paid if he’d hung on another year.

Why? Because the inheritance tax is in exile this year. The rate is zero. Next year it jumps to 55%. That’s right. From zero to 55 at a stroke of midnight. A Maserati doesn’t go that fast.

… Of course, we should never be in this ridiculous scenario. Under President George W. Bush, a law was passed gradually shrinking the estate tax year after year until it reached nothing, a move hailed by everyone except tax-lovers and certain charities.

But in classic government form, the only way the law got through was if it had an expiration date. And guess when? 2010. Die now, or the family gets less.

… All this is bad enough. But with 2010 halfway gone, we’ve created an unimaginable dilemma. Wealthy people are better off dying this December than next January. And their heirs are WAY better off.

Were this a “Saturday Night Live” skit, you’d have Grandma upstairs, crying for her pills, and the kids on a couch watching TV and yelling “Yeah, in a minute!”

Read his whole, reasoned position here. Of course being a sports guy, he has seen the not-so-happy endings caused by the Estate Tax.

From Hoboken, New Jersey:

July 15, 2010

Police officer Bret Globke received an achievement award.

It was March 2, and 69-year-old Hobokenite Mo DeGennaro was sitting at home with his wife Janet. Janet briefly left the room, but when she returned she found her husband of 38 years in bad shape.

“I had double pneumonia,” said DeGennaro Wednesday night. “I had no idea I was sick.”

And if it weren’t for Hoboken patrolman Bret Globke, who responded to the call and realized that DeGennaro was in acute need of help, this story would not have had a happy ending.

DeGennaro is a loyal frequenter of city council meetings, and has been for the past decades. He is known to yell at Council members when he doesn’t agree, but gives credit where credit is due. And although he said he’ll keep criticizing the city as well as the police department, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t appreciate what the officers do on a daily basis.

Union City ambulance volunteers also responded to the call, but Globke, 32, took charge. DeGennaro said that Globke has said “give this guy oxygen,” to prevent DeGenarro from falling into a coma.

“If this guy didn’t come in and take charge…” DeGennaro said, not finishing the sentence. When asked if Globke saved his life, DeGenarro answered: “absolutely.”

During Wednesday night’s city council meeting, Globke was given an achievement award by DeGennaro. “He had to be singled out,” DeGennaro said. …

:
Go here for the rest of the story.

Geez, can’t anybody here play this game?

During his visit to Holland, Michigan on Thursday, President Obama spoke with NBC’s Chuck Todd. NBC aired the interview on the NBC Nightly News and The Today Show.

In reporting on that interview, the Associated Press quoted the President as telling “NBC” (i.e., Todd) that midterm congressional election results could come down to “a choice between the policies that got us into this mess and my policies that got us out of this mess.” I prepared a post (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) that relied on the AP’s quote. It turns out that the AP misquoted the President. I’ll get to what Obama really said shortly.

But there is a also a significant omission in the transcript of the interview carried at the Page, Mark Halperin’s blog at Time/CNN. I wouldn’t know whether NBC, its transcription service, or the White House is responsible for it, but portions of Todd’s questions relating to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’s acknowledgment that Democrats could lose control of the House in this fall’s congressional elections are missing.

Both errors are visible in revisions I have a made to the relevant portion of the transcript that follows (the original video is here for those who wish to hear it for themselves; excerpted portion begins at about the 7:55 mark):

The transcription error, as noted in comparing the yellow-boxed text at the right to the original text on the left visible through the cross-out, is that Todd’s references to Gibbs and to “enough seats” being in play aren’t there.

Of all the things not to show up in a transcript, it “just happens” to be one relating to a possible source of tension between the President and his Press Secretary — something that might inform readers who might not otherwise realize it that the party in charge of Congress could change this fall. How serendipitous for Team Obama.

The AP’s error is underlined in red near the end of the excerpt. Obama did not say, as AP reported, that “my policies got us out of this mess.” He said that they “are getting us out of this mess.” Whether that assertion is true is clearly debatable, but the relevant point at the moment is that AP gave readers, including yours truly, the false impression that the President was already declaring victory over “the mess.” Accordingly, I have added “Modified in Subsequent Post” to the original titles at Friday’s NewsBusters and BizzyBlog posts, and have added an introductory update explaining the situation and pointing to this post at each.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

From Mort Zuckerman at US News (HT Hot Air via Instapundit):

Obama’s Anti-Business Policies Are Our Economic Katrina
His gratuitous and overstated demonization of business is exactly the wrong approach

Read the whole thing. It’s a great dissection of the situation and a bit of a tribute to American economic exceptionalism … from a guy who voted for Obama, and who either didn’t do his homework or somehow convinced himself that the Democratic Party nominee’s campaign rhetoric would be thown away on Inauguration Day.

Mort, you can’t say that the warnings weren’t out there. You and way too many others refused to pay attention. As a businessperson, you should have recognized the beginning of the economic Katrina when it began — roughly five months prior to the 2008 presidential election.

Yours truly recognized the beginning of the economic Katrina just over two year ago. My name for it was and remains “the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy.”

Of course, the fact that I recognized it isn’t nearly as important as the fact that many entrepreneurs, businesspeople, and investors also recognized it and reacted accordingly. Many of those who didn’t catch on to it in June of 2008 did so a couple of months later when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac imploded and the orchestrated crisis that led to TARP unfolded.

But you missed it, Mort. It was right there in front of your eyes. You only had to be willing to see it. You weren’t.

We could use an “I was wrong, I am sorry” from Zuckerman and a whole host of others.

If not, why has the Obama administration clearly shifted its language?

____________________________________________________

This catholic.org item by Randy Sly reports on a very important observation by those whose business it is to watch the trend and tenor of official discourse. It is good that the astute Matt Drudge has ascertained its significance, because their observation deserves much wider attention than it has received thus far.

Before getting to the article, let’s start with the Constitution’s First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What is at issue is the meaning of “the free exercise thereof.” Sly’s piece reports on a subtle linguistic shift by the Obama administration seemingly designed and possibly destined to limit the meaning of that phrase if it gains universal currency (internal links added by me):

Minor Changes in Language Could Mean Major Changes in Religious Freedom
Words matter – listen carefully to our current administration

Since the initially strong language on religious freedom used in President Obama’s Cairo speech, presidential references to religious freedom have become rare, often replaced, at most, with references to freedom of worship. A purposeful change in language could mean a much narrower view of the right to religious freedom.

The change in language was barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term “freedom of worship” by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion. This shift happened between the President’s speech in Cairo where he showcased America’s freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term “freedom of worship.” From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.

In her article for “First Things” magazine, Ashley Samelson, International Programs Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stated, “To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: “The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don’t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet “freedom of worship” would protect none of these acts of faith.”

… Let’s be clear … language matters when it comes to defining freedoms and limits. A shift from freedom of religion to freedom of worship moves the dialog from the world stage into the physical confines of a church, temple, synagogue or mosque. Such limitations can unleash an unbridled initiative that we have only experienced in a mild way through actions determined to remove of roadside crosses, wearing of religious t-shirts and pro-life pins as well as any initiatives of evangelization. It also could exclude our right to raise our children in our faith, the right to religious education, literature or media, the right to raise funds or organize charitable activities and the right to express religious beliefs in the normal discourse of life.

… religion permeates the very fabric of our lives. It cannot and should not be separated into approved and non-approved expressions. Unfortunately, such limits are being instituted across the globe.

… Michelle Boorstein (Feb. 9, 2010), religion reporter for the Washington Post, notes that “Knox Thames, director of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom — a Congress-controlled body tasked with monitoring religious freedom abroad – spoke at a recent briefing about the worry, reportedly saying he sees a change in lingo and that it’s not an accident.”

In presenting a forecast of religious freedom for 2010 to the House Subcommittee on International Religions, Human Rights and Oversight, Georgetown professor Thomas Farr stated, “Those of us in the business of sniffing out rats know that this is a rhetorical shift to watch.” Farr was the former head of the State Department’s International Religious Freedom Office.

Human rights lawyer Nina Shea, who is a Senior Scholar at the Hudson Institute, is also concerned. “I’m very fearful that by building bridges, we’re actually stepping away from this fundamental principle of religious freedom.

What may seem an innocent shift in language now could possibly end up as a “tipping point” for our religious freedom. Make no mistake; this is the goal and desire of the many inside and outside our current administration.

Exactly. Statists would like nothing more than to be able to mandate that people can worship as they please on their designated day of the week, but that they can’t bring their religious views or expressions into their public lives during the rest of it.

Imagine some of the potential implications:

• You’re a pharmacist. You don’t believe in dispensing drugs that you believe are de facto abortifacients (actually, it’s not a matter of belief, it’s a matter of science; they ARE abortifacients). Too bad. If you want to remain a pharmacist, dispensing those drugs is part of your professional duties. If you don’t like it, you have to stop being a pharmacist.
• You’re a doctor or nurse. You won’t participate in abortion procedures. Sorry, yes you will if you are told to do so. If you refuse, you can be fired and lose your license to practice; your defense that it’s against your religious beliefs and your conscience is useless.
• You’re an NHS nurse in the UK. You’ve worn a cross for decades while you work. Your bosses demand that you remove it or stop being a practicing nurse. Despite your appeals and broad public support, they win. (This happened; however, “Under the Trust’s current uniform policy, however, one can wear a hijab for religious reasons but not a cross.”)
• Your religion-based belief is that homosexual sex is sinful, and you try to demand that your child be kept away from public school sex-ed lessons that claim it’s OK. Too bad, so sad; your child has to sit through it, and had better not utter any objections during the presentation. Oh, and there’s a test on which the only “correct” answers are the secular ones …

The state becomes your “conscience” in your daily life. You get to have your own conscience when you worship, and (perhaps) in your private moments.

The “freedom of worship” crowd seems to believe that “the free exercise” of religion only applies when you’re in church or in truly private situations. What else explains the clear linguisitc shift?

The development is every bit as dangerous as those who are sounding the alarm claim it to be.

From Providence, Rhode Island, and many other places:

Jul 17, 2010 / 01:15 pm

“Many people define themselves by their job,” says Ann Coakley. “We believe that it is most important to define ourselves first and foremost as children of God, and that jobs are only a means of service and providing for our basic needs.”

Paul and Ann Coakley wanted to start their life together with as little debt as possible, so Paul took a job with a trucking company shortly before their wedding. They decided that it would be a great way to pay off their student loans, spend time together and see the country. Being on the road has been a great blessing to the Coakleys.

Paul began driving a truck in January of 2008. Ann joined him on the road after their wedding that May, and they have been traveling together ever since.

“To us it has been like a two year honeymoon! We get to be together all the time,” she said. “We’ve driven through 40 states while trucking and have made several trips up into Canada. We stop at museums, wander around small towns and go camping or kayaking whenever we have the chance. There have been mornings when we’ve woken up and seen that snow has fallen on the Mojave Desert or flowers are popping out of the melting snow in Vermont.”

Thanks to trucking, Ann and Paul have been able to see all of New England. They even stopped at Rhode Island’s one and only truck stop.

“Paul and I love driving through New England not only because of the beautiful foliage, but also because of how picturesque each town and farm is,” Ann said. “We’ve rolled through tiny frost- covered New England towns early in the morning and always roll down our windows to breath in the scent of chimney smoke and brewing Green Mountain coffee at little diners and coffee shops.”

Before trucking Paul and Ann were able to attend daily Mass on a regular basis. They would go to adoration together and join other young people for prayer groups. But once they started trucking it was really only possible to attend Sunday Mass.

“We’ve really missed those things, especially being part of a community,” she said. “Now, there are times when we’ve had to walk five miles to get to church because of where we have to park our truck. During the summer we’ve come into Mass hot and sticky from walking from a truck stop. Rainy or snowy days always keep things interesting.”

Ann explained that going to a different parish each Sunday can be fun. They have gone to large stone cathedrals and small, white New England clapboard churches. They have heard amazing homilies and have had strangers welcome them with open arms.

“We’ve spent the last two Christmases on the road and were blessed by the warmth and familiarity of Christmas Mass,” she shared. “It is a beautiful thing to be able to go anywhere and experience something as familiar as the Liturgy of the Mass and to be able to appreciate the uniqueness of each parish at the same time.”

When Ann first joined Paul, she explained that she was nervous about many aspects of life on the road. “There seemed to be so many unknowns when it came to trucking,” she said. “The life of a trucker was a mystery to me, but once I was there with Paul things worked out much better than I expected- except that even after two years on the road it can still be frustrating trying to find a place to pull over an 18-wheeler when you need to use the bathroom.”

The couple explained that they haul loads of almost anything and everything anywhere.

“The coolest load we’ve ever had was delivering a truck full of castings of dinosaur bones to a museum that was opening in San Antonio, Texas,” Ann said. “The people that worked at the museum were so excited that as each crate was unloaded they would unpack them immediately and lay out the bones to look at.”

Their two-year-long trucking honeymoon has allowed them to live simply so that they could pay off their student loans quickly, but now God is leading them in a different and exciting direction. Paul and Ann will be finishing trucking soon and beginning to help her parents with their small Catholic publishing company, Precious Life Books. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

It’s not a stretch to believe that the folks at the Associated Press would rather not report bad news from that communist workers’ paradise known as Cuba.

Just look at how the wire service has dealt with clearly significant news about the island nation’s economy. Though the news, carried originally at the Miami Herald, is three months old, the AP as best I can tell finally got around to writing a story about it late Friday, the beginning of a summer weekend when few are following the news closely. How convenient.

Here is some of what the Herald’s Juan O. Tamay reported on April 19:

Raúl Castro admits that Cuba has one million excess jobs
The figures on unproductive workers in the government and its enterprises surprised even some Cuban economists.

The stunning figure was revealed by Cuban leader Raúl Castro himself: The Cuban government and its enterprises might have more than one million excess workers on their payrolls.

That’s more than one million unproductive workers, out of what official Cuban figures show is a total of 4.9 million people working in formal jobs in a country of 11.2 million people.

And that’s part of the explanation, several economists said, for a calamitously over-centralized and unproductive economy that, for example, forces a tropical island to import an estimated 60 percent of the food its people consume. The Cuban government has historically insisted on keeping people officially employed, even in unproductive jobs. Unemployment was last reported at 1.6 percent by the National Statistics Office (ONE).

About 95 percent of the jobs in Cuba’s formal sector are with the government — ministries, their agencies and enterprises — though salaries are so low, averaging about $20 a month, nationwide, that many Cubans also have off-the-books work to make ends meet.

But the figures on excess jobs in the government and its enterprises mentioned by Raúl Castro surprised even some Cuban economists.

“We know there’s an excess of hundreds of thousands of workers in the budgeted and enterprise sectors (and) some analysts calculate that the excess of jobs is more than one million,” he said Sunday in a speech to the Cuban Communist Youth.

There are “inflated payrolls, very inflated payrolls, terribly inflated payrolls,” Castro said before adding a reassurance: “The revolution will not forsake anyone. I will fight to create the conditions so that all Cubans have honorable jobs.”

… “All will remain in their jobs, but depending on the possibilities many will be reassigned to useful and productive jobs,” the newspaper noted. “Cuba will never resort to the easy and inhumane formulas of neoliberalism, based on massive dismissals.”

Yeah, making people hang around doing almost nothing all day and paying them $20 a month is far more “humane.” Zheesh.

Even though the news of Raul Castro’s acknowledgment of the size and scope of “overemployment” is is about three months old, the AP either hasn’t covered this story, or it has done so extremely quietly. Various Google News Archive searches covering April through June of this year failed to return any results relating to that one million excess jobs pronouncement (there may be such a story behind the AP’s or other newspapers’ subscription walls, but it seems very unlikely).

Here is some of Ann-Marie Garcia’s July 16 report (bolds after title are mine):

Jobless in Cuba? Communism faces the unthinkable

President Raul Castro has startled the nation lately by saying about one in five Cuban workers may be redundant.

… Here, nearly everyone works for the state and official unemployment is minuscule, but pay is so low that Cubans like to joke that “the state pretends to pay us and we pretend to work.”

Now, facing a severe budget deficit, the government has hinted at restructuring or trimming its bloated work force. Such talk is causing tension, however, in a country where guaranteed employment was a building block of the 1959 revolution that swept Fidel Castro to power.

Details are sketchy on how and when such pruning would take place. Still, acknowledgment that cuts are needed has come from Raul Castro himself.

“We know that there are hundreds of thousands of unnecessary workers on the budget and labor books, and some analysts calculate that the excess of jobs has surpassed 1 million,” said Castro, who replaced his ailing brother Fidel as president nearly four years ago. Cuba’s work force totals 5.1 million, in a population of 11.2 million.

In his nationally televised speech in April, Castro also had harsh words for those who do little to deserve their salaries.

“Without people feeling the need to work to make a living, sheltered by state regulations that are excessively paternalistic and irrational, we will never stimulate a love for work,” he said.

April is “lately” when it’s mid-July? Who knew?

Now the AP can say, “See, see, we covered the story” — even though it appears that its real intent is to keep the news as invisible as possible.

The Associated Press is among many news organizations which have been ignoring the now-sworn testimony of J. Christian Adams, the whistleblowing lawyer who first asserted almost three weeks ago that there is “profound hostility by the Obama Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department towards a race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws.”

Adams resigned from the DOJ after the following sequence of events:

On Election Day 2008, armed men wearing the uniforms and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were posted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at the entrance to a polling site. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters. After the election, the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice brought a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and these armed thugs. I, and other Justice lawyers, obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the case against them.

Before a final judgment could be entered, however, our superiors ordered dismissal of the claims.

A search on “Christian Adams” (not in quotes) at the AP’s main site returns nothing relevant. Sadly, that alone is not exceptional.

Given the above background, what is shocking, even to those of us who think they’ve seen it all from the wire service, is AP reporter Meg Kinnard’s coverage of a South Carolina murder and the “group” that wants it declared a hate crime. Guess who (bolds are mine):

Group: Dragging of slain SC man is a hate crime

For the New Black Panther Party, it’s simple: A black man being shot to death by a white man and dragged for miles behind a pickup truck is a racial hate crime.

For local authorities and residents in this city of 11,000 in central South Carolina, it’s not so clear: The suspect and the victim were apparently friends, often eating lunch together at the turkey processing plant where they worked. Investigators say they spent several hours together before the gruesome slaying. And some speculate whether it started with an argument about a woman.

Federal authorities haven’t yet decided whether to classify the killing of Anthony Hill, 30, as a hate crime. State authorities are still investigating and monitoring news conferences by the black activist group, which plans a rally Saturday on its insistence that Hill was killed for his color.

“Certain types of killings, like being dragged behind a pickup truck, are vestiges of slavery and Jim Crow-type punishments,” said Malik Zulu Shabazz, president of the New Black Panther Party. “They’re inherently hate crimes. That’s our position — that any time a black person is dragged behind a pickup truck, automatically, there is a presumption that it is a hate crime.”

… Officials say Hill, a former firefighter in the National Guard, was killed by a single gunshot to the head before he was dragged.

… If there was racial tension or other animosity between the two men, it has not yet become known. Authorities said Hill and (accused killer Gregory) Collins had spent hours together in the day and night before the shooting, hanging out late into the evening. Hill’s co-workers told police he and Collins frequently ate lunch together at work.

Shabazz, who says he has helped several families throughout the country affected by similar crimes, says he has all the evidence he needs to see that Hill’s death should be a hate crime, despite evidence that the men were friends.

… Shabazz has made several trips to Newberry, holding meetings and news conferences intended to push authorities to accelerate their investigation.

… the local gossip is that Hill and Collins both had a relationship with the same woman, leading to an argument.

The Associated Press had all the opportunity in the world to write a headline identifying the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) as the “group” alleging a hate crime. It didn’t. Try this, guys — “New Black Panthers Claim SC Murder a Hate Crime.” It’s about the same length as the “group” headline above.

Meg Kinnard had all the opportunity in the world to inform readers about the background of the headlined “group,” including its classification as a hate group by two very different organizations: the Anti-Defamation League and even the usually conservative-paranoid Southern Poverty Law Center. She didn’t.

Kinnard had all the opportunity in the world to note that the hate crime-obsessed Shabazz is the leader of a group whose King Samir Shabazz (not the same person) said the following hateful things (among many) during a 2009 National Geographic documentary interview:

“You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!”

She didn’t.

Kinnard had all the opportunity in the world to report that the NBPP is the beneficiary of the Eric Holder Justice Department’s abandonment of race-neutral prosecution standards. She didn’t.

It is almost inconceivable that Meg Kinnard is not aware of the NBPP’s background and the DOJ controversy. If her life is so sheltered that she really isn’t, it’s virtually impossible that the AP’s editors don’t know of these things.

Yet on Friday, this wire service, which describes itself as “the Essential Global News Network,” put over 900 words into a story that cast the NBPP as a legitimately concerned civil rights organization and Shabazz as a serious civil rights leader, including this pathetic paragraph near its end:

In a barbershop he owns a few blocks away, 37-year-old Keith Suber says he knew Hill and feels that the black community in Newberry isn’t outraged by the lack of a hate crime charge. He hopes the spotlight from the New Black Panthers’ appearances in town may lead to community improvements for young people, like more public pools and recreation centers.

The once-proud Associated Press seems to be on a mission to see how low it can sink. If that is indeed its mission, it’s doing a remarkable job.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

There are two different ways of defining a recession. The Associated Press is using one of them to define its beginning, and the other to define its end. Using the former makes George Bush look bad; using the latter makes Barack Obama look good. Imagine that.

The traditional definition of “recession,” which is used as the official metric in the vast majority of countries around the world, is that it is “a decline in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two or more consecutive quarters.” Using that metric, the U.S. recession began in July 2008, the first month of the first quarter during which economy contracted, and ended in June 2009, the last month of the final of four consecutive quarters of contraction. Positive economic growth resumed during the third quarter of 2009.

The other definition of “recession” is “a period of economic contraction as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).” For reasons I’ll never understand, but which I believe have their origins in political considerations, the government ceded the “official” definition of “recession” to the NBER several decades ago, moving this metric from the purely objective realm to the clearly subjective.

The NBER says that the recession began in December of 2007. Three months ago, it said that it was unable, based on available data, to declare that the recession has ended, even though nine months had already passed since it did so under the traditional definition. My guess is that the group will declare the recession’s end shortly, and that it will say it ended in the latter part of 2009. But until we hear otherwise, the recession as the NBER defines it is not over, and those who have been using this definition cannot yet defensibly pretend that it is over.

The Associated Press is among those who are indefensibly pretending.

A Google News Archive search on [crutsinger "began in December 2007"] (typed exactly as indicated between brackets) returns 49 examples in which Mr. Crutsinger employed the NBER’s definition of when the recession began.

A Google News Archive search on ["Associated Press" recession "began in December 2007"] (again typed exactly as indicated between brackets) returns roughly 190 examples where the wire service used the NBER’s definition or contributed to reports that did.

There are likely many more similar but inaccessible examples residing behind the AP’s and other media outlets’ subscription walls.

So imagine my surprise (I’m kidding; sadly, this is as predictable as the sunrise) when I found that Crutsinger, in a co-authored report with the wire service’s David Wagner about weakening economic indicators, told readers that the recession ended last year:

Manufacturing cools in June as recovery slows

New evidence of a slowing economic rebound emerged Thursday in reports that manufacturing activity is slowing after helping drive the early stages of the recovery.

Factory output fell in June, according to a government report on industrial production. It was the sharpest monthly drop in a year. And two regional manufacturing indexes sank this month.

Production of automobiles, home-building materials and processed food all fell in June. The data sent stocks falling.

Federal Reserve officials took note of the weakening recovery when they met last month and lowered their forecast for economic growth, according to minutes released Wednesday.

Manufacturing helped boost the economy last year when the recession ended and has since been one of the strongest sectors in the recovery.

Since I don’t think anyone at NBER has whispered this into Martin’s ear, I have to believe that he decided to change his definition of “recession” now that a struggling Democrat occupies the White House.

Since Crutsinger decided to move to the traditional definition of a recession in declaring its end, you might think that other recent AP reports have moved its beginning to July 2008. Don’t be silly.

Keeping the recession’s beginning at the NBER’s December 2007 starting point serves as a subtle but constant reminder to readers that it all began under the eeeeeevil George W. Bush, even though second quarter 2008 growth was positive, and even though tax collections reached a “Supply-Side Stunner” all-time high in April 2008.

That’s why on Friday, just one day after Crutsinger’s “recession has ended” report appeared, the AP’s Christopher Rugaber, in a story covering the sharp declines in job openings reported by the Labor Department, stuck with the NBER’s starting point:

Job openings drop in May as hiring stays weak

Job openings dropped in May from the previous month and layoffs edged up, fresh evidence that employers are reluctant to add workers.

The decline in job openings comes after a sharp rise the previous two months, driven by temporary government hiring for the 2010 census and more openings in the private sector. As a result, the number of available jobs has rebounded since the depths of the recession but remains well below pre-recession levels.

The Labor Department said Tuesday that job openings fell to 3.2 million in May from 3.3 million in the previous month. April’s upwardly revised figure was the highest in 18 months.

The department’s report, known as the Job Openings and Labor Turnover survey, illustrates how competitive the job market is. There were about 4.7 unemployed people, on average, for each job opening in May. That’s down from the peak of 6.3 last November, but is much higher than the 1.8 unemployed per opening when the recession began in December 2007.

Heads, Obama and Democrats win. Tails, Bush and Republicans lose. That’s “journalism” at the Associated Press.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

July 18: This post has been revised to reflect the fact that the President said that “my policies … are getting us out of this mess” instead of what the Associated Press originally reported (“my policies … got us out of this mess”).

Dick Morris caught on to the main historical parallel two days ago:

Now Obama is trying to sell the unsellable — that the economy is getting better. In Nevada, he said: “But the question is, No. 1: Are we on the right track? And the answer is, yes.” Presumably those who are gullible enough to think they can beat the casino odds in Vegas are ripe for this form of self-delusion, but it leaves the rest of us cold. The fact is that, when asked directly in polls whether the U.S. is on the right or the wrong track, by more than two to one, Americans feel the nation is on the wrong track.

Fifteen million are unemployed and, adding in underemployed, part-time workers and those who have given up looking, the total is 26 million. So Obama’s statements of confidence are a bit like Herbert Hoover’s ritual incantation that “Prosperity is just around the corner.”

Morris wrote this before the President told NBC in an interview that “my policies … are getting us out of this mess.”

Obama is in a very real sense trumping Hoover, who personally believed but falsely claimed that prosperity was close. Obama apparently believes that his policies have already partially accomplished something. Well, okay. His policies have led to higher unemployment; a failure to make a meaningful dent in unemployment after 18 months, accompanied by frightening workforce disillusionment; declining retail sales; record foreclosures; off-the-chart federal deficits featuring unprecedented spending ramp-ups despite a 20%-plus decline in tax collections over two years, where the nation’s true cash deficits are higher than reported; a renewed decline in factory output; and an atmosphere of economic fear and business uncertainty unlike any I have seen in my lifetime, including the late-1970s and early-1980s.

(Sidebar: Note the egotistical “my”; then try to find a former president who so routinely arrogated all of the credit to himself–besides Bill Clinton, who also occasionally engaged in this fetid form of self-aggrandizement; good luck.)

The President shouldn’t be so quick to grab all the credit. This has been a group effort of one party and their three principal leaders whose most visible efforts to take down the economy and keep it there go back just over two years. That’s why yours truly has called it “The POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy” since July 2008. The less visible efforts to take down the economy go back to 1993, when Democratic crony companies Fannie Mae and shortly thereafter Freddie Mac began routinely defrauding investors — and ultimately taxpayers in general — by misrepresenting the quality of the loans they securitized, and 1999, when Fan and Fred began opening the loan spigots to clearly unqualified and undeserving borrowers.

This is on them. It isn’t just a mess. What started as a mess — their mess — threatens to turn into the Mother of All Economic Quagmires.

____________________________________________________

UPDATE: Further confirmation that the atmosphere of economic fear cited earlier is real –

The University of Michigan’s preliminary Consumer Sentiment Index plunged to 66.5 for July (the lowest such reading since last August) from 76.0 in June, adding yet another component to a seemingly ceaseless parade of negative economic data.

Consumers are clearly worried about a fragile recovery and still high unemployment.

According to Action Economics (AE), most analysts’ expected a slight drop to about 74.0.

The Obama-protecting Bloomberg via Business Week wouldn’t tell readers how the number changed, or how much it trailed expectations. That’s why the magazine is called Biz Weak around here. I’m tempted to apply the name “Obamaberg” to Bloomberg.

UPDATE, JULY 18: This post was based in an Associated Press’s quote of a statement President Obama made to NBC News that “my policies … got us out of this mess.” Subsequent review of the video and transcript of that interview shows that the President really said “my policies … are getting us out of this mess.” I have prepared a follow-up post dealing with this matter and a separate significant omission in the transcript at BizzyBlog and NewsBusters.

What follows are the first three paragraphs from this short AP report on President Obama’s interview with NBC:

It seems to me that the headline shouldn’t be about voters deciding who’s responsible for this mess (for what it’s worth, pal, voters can and will have their say, but that doesn’t affect who’s really responsible, any more than OJ Simpson’s jury acquittal on murder charges means he really didn’t commit the crimes).

No, the headline should really be the president’s breathtaking claim that he has — already — “got us out of this mess.”

Who knew?

Unemployment is still 9.5%, and it’s only that low because so many people have given up looking for work.

Foreclosures are still at record highs.

Retail sales have dropped by more than minor amounts for two months in a row.

The government’s budget deficit is over $1 trillion for the second year in a row (it’s really over $100 billion worse).

But the President says he “got out of this mess,” and the AP apparently takes it as a given.

Yeah, right.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

In response to a question from the Washington Times, the el bizzaro Obama/Holder Department of Justice indicts itself:

A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state’s immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that “actively interferes.”

”There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. “That’s what Arizona did in this case.”

But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration laws thinks the administration is misreading the statute and that sanctuary cities are in violation of federal law. Drawing a distinction between those localities and Arizona, he said, is “flimsy justification” for suing the state.

“For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law
who fail to comply with the law
is absurd,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. “Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not.”

The editorialists at Investors Business Daily are justifiably outraged:

The administration said its lawsuit against Arizona was all about the pre-eminence of federal law over state. Now they say city laws pre-empt federal when it comes to sanctuary for illegals. Double standard, anyone?

… So cities such as Los Angeles, Laredo, San Francisco, Austin, Ann Arbor, Cambridge and 133 others, as well as Oregon, can go on ignoring the illegal immigration in their cities, no matter what the cost, because the Feds don’t really care.

… There is one and only one way to make sense of these twists and turns of logic: cynical partisan politics pre-empting all laws.

This is what tyrants do. Depending on whether or not they like a given law, they either selectively enforce it or pretend it doesn’t exist. For all practical purposes, they become the law.

As Michelle Malkin pointed out almost two years ago, locales choosing to be sanctuaries provide de facto hideouts to some of the worst criminals and endanger residents’ safety — sometimes with deadly consequences.