In a chance conversation with a gentleman who had recently visited London and Wales, I heard him describe a car he had rented on that trip which gets 71 miles per gallon.

Huh?

Yes, he insisted. 71 mpg — and it’s a 5-passenger diesel-powered vehicle.

What? Stinky, smelly diesel?

No, he said. It smells no more or less than an ordinary, gas-powered car.

It’s the Volkswagen Polo.

Here’s part of a review at Car and Driver in November 2009 (picture at top right was taken from that review):

2010 Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion Diesel – Quick Spin
Save the earth in this 70-mpg diesel.

What Is It?

Simply one of the most efficient five-seaters on the market today. The Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion (BlueMotion is VW’s term for its line of hyper-frugal diesel vehicles) is designed to be mass-market compatible, unlike most fuel misers. Indeed, until recently, the typical efficient car—especially in Europe, where this Polo is sold—has been the very definition of a penalty box, with little in the way of luxuries and barely more horsepower than an Amish buggy. This Polo is comfortable and at least has enough power to merge into traffic safely.

How Does It Drive?

The Polo BlueMotion is powered by a 1.2-liter three-cylinder turbo-diesel derived from the 1.6-liter TDI four-cylinder available in the Golf BlueMotion and Passat BlueMotion models. It’s equipped with a stop/start system that turns off the engine when stopped and restarts it when the driver requests movement. Revs at idle are reduced, and regenerative braking recuperates wasted energy when coasting or decelerating. Helping with efficiency, the Polo BlueMotion incorporates a lot of weight-saving technology and comes in at about 2400 pounds. That’s considered lightweight these days.

… In the European cycle, the Polo BlueMotion is rated at a combined 71 mpg. After spending considerable time behind the wheel, we can confirm these numbers are pretty accurate in the real world.

… If fuel consumption were the decisive criterion, nothing could come close to this VW—including politically correct hybrids such as the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius, which are EPA city/highway rated at 40/43 mpg and 51/48 mpg, respectively.

Where Can I Get One?

Not here, at least not yet. The U.S. will likely get the Polo at some point, probably as a four-door sedan, but it’s not clear whether the BlueMotion model will be included in the lineup.

A visit to VW’s UK site indicates a price range of 9,495 – 12,310 British pounds (probably before several options), which translates to about $15,600 – $20,200 US$ at current exchange rates. The Chevy Volt’s MSRP is $40,280.

From all indications, the Polo has none of the inconveniences or extra costs associated with the four-passenger Chevy Volt, particularly the whole plug-in exercise, limited range, etc. If this area (metro Cincinnati) is typical, a large plurality if not a majority of gas stations have at least one diesel pump these days. The person with whom I spoke told me that U.S. and worldwide regs imposed on diesel fuel content and VW’s improved technology over mediocre American offerings of the past have removed problems previously experienced with bad smells and smoke.

So it would appear that the VW Polo puts the Chevy Volt to shame. So why isn’t it available here (confirmed by visiting to this VW US page) — or did I just answer my own question?

___________________________________________

UPDATE: A commenter just raised the issue of the diesel-powered Ford Fusion, which is an SUV that gets 53 MPG, and is apparently big in Europe.

COMMENTERS:

Please use the comment link at the bottom right of this post, and NOT the comment box which appears below if you’re not on the home page. The comment box got hacked some time ago and isn’t operational.

From South Bend, Indiana:

South Bend, Ind., Apr 9, 2011 / 07:10 am

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver encouraged a gathering of pro-life University of Notre Dame students to be courageous in fighting for their beliefs and to always remember what being Catholic really means.

“(W)e need to learn that not from the world; not from the tepid and self-satisfied; and not from the enemies of the Church, even when they claim to be Catholic; but from the mind and memory of the Church herself, who speaks through her pastors,” he said in an April 8 speech at the university.

Chaput noted how the philosopher Leszek Kolakowski stressed the reality of evil. Though not an orthodox religious thinker, Kolakowski talked about Satan “not as a metaphor or legend or the figment of neurotic imaginations, but as a living actor in history.”

The devil, the archbishop said, “works in the present to capture our hearts and steal our future. But he also attacks our memory; the narrative of our own identity.” This is because our memory of history conditions our thoughts and choices in our daily lives.

Archbishop Chaput encouraged his audience to participate in politics, saying, “Christ never absolved us from defending the weak, or resisting evil in the world, or from solidarity with people who suffer.”

Catholics cannot exclude their religious beliefs from guiding their political behavior, because God sees that this “duplicity” is a kind of cowardice. This lack of courage wounds Christians’ individual integrity and also discourages others who try to witness publicly to their faith.

Christians should act on their beliefs always with humility, charity and prudence, but also always with courage, he emphasized.

“We need to fight for what we believe,” he said. “Nothing we do to defend the human person, no matter how small, is ever unfruitful or forgotten. Our actions touch other lives and move other hearts in ways we can never fully understand in this world. Don’t ever underestimate the beauty and power of the witness you give in your pro-life work.”

The archbishop also described abortion as “the foundational human rights issue of our lifetime.”

“We can’t simultaneously serve the poor and accept the legal killing of unborn children. We can’t build a just society, and at the same time legally sanctify the destruction of generations of unborn human life,” he added. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Pro or con on the “historic” shutdown-avoidance deal? I’d say the proof will be how much lower than $3.819 trillion the final year-end number comes in. Besides, the “drama” resumes on Thursday.

Mark Steyn understands that the current fiscal 2011 arguments, though important, pale in comparison to 2012 and beyond, and that being led by the most out-of-touch president in memory does not help (internal link added by me):

My comrade Jonah Goldberg compares America’s present situation to that of a plane with one engine out belching smoke. But, if anything, he understates the crisis. Air America doesn’t need a busted engine because it’s pre-programmed to crash.

Our biggest problem is Medicare and other “entitlements.” They’re the automatic pilot of Big Government. Whoever’s in the captain’s seat makes no difference. The flight is pre-programmed to hit the iceberg, if you’ll forgive me switching mass-transit metaphors in midstream.

For some reason, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Harkin & Co. don’t seem to mind this. If you recall the smile on the face of the “automatic pilot” in “Airplane!” as he’s being inflated, that’s pretty much the Democrats’ attitude to binge-spending as a permanent fact of life.

For a sense of Democratic insouciance to American decline, let us turn to the president himself.

… The cost of a gallon of gas has doubled on Obama’s watch, and this gentleman (in Pennsylvania) asked, “Is there a chance of the price being lowered again?”

As the Associated Press reported it, the president responded “laughingly.” “I know some of these big guys, they’re all still driving their big SUVs. You know, they got their big monster trucks and everything . . . If you’re complaining about the price of gas, and you’re only getting eight miles a gallon — (laughter) . . .”

That’s how the official White House transcript reported it: Laughter. Big yuks. “So, like I said, if you’re getting eight miles a gallon, you may want to think about a trade-in. You can get a great deal.”

… Message: It’s your fault.

… America, 2011: A man gets driven in a motorcade to sneer at a man who has to drive himself to work. A guy who has never generated a dime of wealth, never had to make payroll, never worked at any job other than his own tireless self-promotion, literally cannot comprehend that out there beyond the far fringes of the motorcade outriders are people who drive a long distance to jobs whose economic viability is greatly diminished when getting there costs twice as much as the buck-eighty-per-gallon it cost back at the dawn of the Hopeychangey Era.

So what? Your fault. Should have gone to Columbia and Harvard and become a community organizer.

Another 10 years of this, and large tracts of America will be Third World.

… What’s about to hit America is not a “shock.” It’s not an earthquake, it’s not a tsunami, it’s what Paul Ryan calls “the most predictable crisis in the history of our country.” It has one cause: spending.

Even Mr. Steyn understates the urgency, as will be shown here and elsewhere in the coming week.

From Ellenwood, Georgia:

Apr 3, 2011 / 04:50 pm

Tonya Roque and her four children are looking forward to Easter, a holy day that will hold special significance for them as they and nearly 2,000 others enter the Catholic Church in North Georgia at the close of this Lenten season.

On Sunday, March 13, the Roques joined the thousands who filled the Boisfeuillet Jones Atlanta Civic Center for the Rite of Election and the Call to Continuing Conversion, a celebration led by Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory and Atlanta Auxiliary Bishop Luis R. Zarama.

This Easter in its parishes and missions, the archdiocese anticipates baptizing 647 catechumens, those who have never been initiated before into a Christian community. Another 1,265 candidates, those previously baptized in the Christian faith, will be initiated into the Catholic sacraments of Eucharist and confirmation.

It was an exciting time for the Roque family, who, as new Catholics, will be entering the faith of their husband and father, Fernando. They were seated with the other candidates and catechumens from St. Philip Benizi Church, the Catholic community in Jonesboro where the family will become parishioners.

Tonya Roque did not grow up in a Christian family, but said she has attended all types of Christian services during her life. But when she first started seeking more information about the Catholic Church, she felt confirmed that she was heading in the right direction.

“There is a difference when you walk into a Catholic church,” she said. “Everyone is so welcoming. It felt like a family.”

Her husband’s family in Texas is Catholic and first exposed her to the faith. She remembers attending celebrations with the family during a visit at Christmas 2009. She attended Las Posadas, a nine-day celebration reflecting the nine months Mary was pregnant with Jesus. Each night was spent at a different home where reenactments of Mary and Joseph’s journey and search for shelter took place. The sense of community among the faithful was inspiring to her and she felt called to try and foster the same closeness within her own family.

‘It Was Time To Make A Change’

Her journey to the Catholic Church officially began last year when Roque and her children began attending RCIA classes at St. Philip Benizi. It has been several months of prayer, learning and discernment, which eventually led her to the Rite of Election this past Sunday. They are catechumens.

“There was a time when I knew myself that it was a time to make a change,” she said about her family life. “I wanted to show them the right way to live.”

She began calling around to different churches and eventually spoke to Mary Mauldin, director of faith formation at St. Philip Benizi.

“The first person I talked to was Mary and just talking to her over the phone about the Catholic religion, I knew that was the place I wanted to go,” she said.

Roque and her four children, Justino, 17, Leticia, 16, Lisa, 14, and Joshua, 11, all began to participate in RCIA shortly afterward. They have been learning about the richness and depth of Catholicism, which has led to family discussions about God, something for which Roque is grateful.

Go here for the rest of the story.

And while we sleep, it will probably be spun around in quite a variety of ways.

What appears to have been the very first Associated Press report at 11:05 p.m. on the final-hour deal that averted a threatened government shutdown came from David Espo at the Associated Press (Espo’s byline appeared at the AP’s main site, but that report was supplanted by a second one to be discussed shortly; Espo’s report it saved here in full as a graphic for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes):

Congress, White House reach deal to avoid government shutdown

Perilously close to a government shutdown, congressional leaders reached agreement with the White House late Friday night on a deal to cut tens of billions of dollars in federal spending and avert the closure.

House Speaker John Boehner informed the GOP rank and file of the accord, reached in grueling negotiations over several weeks, an official said.

“We have an agreement,” concurred a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Jon Summers.

… Officials said it would keep the government in funds through the middle of next week.

… Republicans said the deal called for $39 billion in spending cuts, a measure that one official said Boehner told his rank and file marked the “largest real-dollar spending cut in American history.”

Over a decade, the agreement would cut more than $500 billion from the federal budget, Boehner added, according to a participant in the meeting.

The agreement marked an extraordinary reach across party lines and the first test of a new era of divided government …

Espo’s 11:19 p.m. report, reproduced in full graphically below, appears to be mostly an attempt at a start-over. It oh-so-predictably gets President Obama by name into the first paragraph and puts the verbiage about the reported “historic” significance of the spending cuts into his mouth (and into the headline) instead of Boehner’s:

So now Barry’s the hero, and Boehner gets second billing, with the same set of facts and circumstances, proven in realtime. Zheesh.

Can’s wait to see how the AP slices and dices this deal in the coming day or so. Then it looks like we’ll be returning to the laundry room by about Wednesday — make that Thursday.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

__________________________________________________

UPDATE: It’s hard to take a lot of comfort from Speaker Boehner’s joint press release with Harry Reid:

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tonight released the following statement:

“We have agreed to an historic amount of cuts for the remainder of this fiscal year, as well as a short-term bridge that will give us time to avoid a shutdown while we get that agreement through both houses and to the President. We will cut $78.5 billion below the President’s 2011 budget proposal, and we have reached an agreement on the policy riders. In the meantime, we will pass a short-term resolution to keep the government running through Thursday. That short-term bridge will cut the first $2 billion of the total savings.”

Call me cynical or some kind of unreasonable “purist” or the detector of a multi-decade pattern of getting misled and betrayed, but if all they have in the bag is $2 billion, the rest can be the subject of strategic reneging — and probably will be.

UPDATE 2: Roger Simon is impressed (internal link is in original) –

He is a much more impressive man than I thought he was. He has a skill we could all learn from: don’t make it personal.

Most of us – myself very much included – are governed to a great degree by our anger. We also want to be the smartest person in the room. (Obama, of course, suffers severely from this, as does Gingrich.) We forget the object is to win, not to be RIGHT! So in the midst of that the proverbial forest is lost for the trees.

While I agree with Roger Kimball that what has been achieved here is but the tiniest tip of the tip of a particularly giant iceberg, I suspect Boehner may have changed the atmosphere.

Hope so.

UPDATE 3: From Chris Stirewalt at Fox News makes some interesting observations (bolds are mine) —

… Boehner is unusual for his willingness to share credit and power. While previous speakers have tended toward being either commanders or captives of their caucuses, Boehner has been neither.

Recall how Obama framed the debate when Boehner looked jammed up on the spending plan – the $33 billion in cuts he was offering was about the same amount that Boehner’s leadership team had initially recommended. The president thought he was picking at a scab here because those budget cuts were roundly rejected by the rank and file of Boehner’s caucus.

But the speaker didn’t try to jam through that plan or stick up for the low-balling leadership, he told his caucus to work out whatever plan they wanted and that he would sell it. It looked like weakness to Democrats, but actually strengthened Boehner’s hand. He had given the fiery freshmen a chance to blow off steam and enhance their sense of ownership of the legislation.

It also showed Democrats that Boehner was sincere when he said that he wouldn’t sell out his caucus.

Okay, if so, let’s hope Boehner resists the temptation to get full of himself, like Gingrich did — well actually, that’s how Newt has been during his two decades in the spotlight, which is why he could be rolled. I’d say the prospects for Boehner maintaining his cool while everyone else is going nuts are good. He’s in the job he’s always wanted, and he’s not thinking about his next step up the ladder. He just wants to do the best he can for his country in his current job. Imagine that. I just he hope he’s aiming high.

It may be laziness, or it may be failure to recognize reality, but the Associated Press’s official tally of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race carried at JSOnline (but note the AP-based URL) still shows Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg with a 204-vote lead over incumbent David Prosser, and hasn’t been updated since Wednesday at 4:00 p.m.

This failure to update has occurred despite the following statement made at the 3:00 mark of the video (HT Hot Air) showing Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus explaining why over 14,000 country votes were not originally reported to the Badger State’s Government Accountability Board (GAB), which oversees state elections, at a late Thursday press conference:

These numbers will be reflected in my official results, canvass report, that was submitted to the Government Accountability Board.

Ms. Nickolaus mixed up tenses, but it seems pretty clear that by using the word “official” she is saying that the GAB now has the results, and that they should be reflected in any official reports.

Accordingly, yours truly has updated the AP’s non-current scoreboard with the Waukesha County correction and a couple of smaller ones:

The Winnebago County difference difference was noted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Thursday afternoon, and at that point changed what had been a 204-vote Kloppenburg lead to a 40-vote Prosser advantage. I picked up the more minor Dane County difference, which if done before the Waukesha County disclosure would have put Kloppenburg back into a temporary 3-vote lead, by going to its official canvass results.

As seen above, when all changes I could identify are incorporated, Prosser leads by 7,559 votes, or a margin of 0.5067%. This is ever so slightly above the threshold where, according to Page 2 of the GAB’s recount manual, Kloppenburg would be required to pay for a recount: “If the difference (in the total votes cast between the leading candidate and those cast for the petitioner) is more than .5% but not more than 2%, the fee is $5 per ward.” In Wisconsin, a ward is apparently the same thing as a precinct.

With the handwriting on the wall, the AP’s Todd Richmond tonight went into conposing what was mostly a Democratic Party consolation piece. His old Kloppenburg margin report was the AP’s stale number from Wednesday, as he failed to take into account Winnebago County known results change. Also note the direct late-paragraph contradiction of Richmond’s earlier assertion that the results represented a “draw” for Governor Scott Walker (bolds are mine):

When a little-known liberal challenged a conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, the once-sleepy race suddenly looked like a backdoor way for Gov. Scott Walker’s opponents to sink his agenda.

Then a clerk discovered 14,000 unrecorded votes that vaulted the incumbent into the lead. Experts said the results represented a draw for the governor: He didn’t lose, but the slim margin means he didn’t win big, either. And the close contest could help ensure Walker’s opponents stay energized for the next round.

The outcome also improves the odds that Walker’s collective bargaining law would survive a legal challenge before the high court. Yet it falls short of a clear public endorsement of the governor’s policy.

The conservative “didn’t win by the margin everyone expected him to win by,” said University of Wisconsin-Green Bay political science professor Michael Kraft. “If I were Walker, I wouldn’t be saying everything is just dandy and people love me.”

… Democrats and Kloppenburg supporters worked to tap into the anger surrounding the measure. They hoped electing Kloppenburg would tilt the state Supreme Court to the left, increasing the chances that the justices might eventually strike down the law.

They attacked Prosser as a Walker clone and sought to tie him to the governor’s aggressive budget-cutting agenda. At first it looked as if the strategy had worked.

Kloppenburg’s campaign surged, and voter turnout in Tuesday’s election shattered expectations. Unofficial returns initially showed Kloppenburg with a 204-vote lead out of 1.5 million votes cast.

… (19th paragraph — Ed.) “This is a win for the right over the left. Had Kloppenburg won, it would have been a significant victory” for Walker’s opponents, said University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee political scientist Mordecai Lee, a former Democratic state lawmaker.

Instead of looking for silver linings, Richmond would have been better served if he had remembered a famous saying from the mouth of a rather well-known coach of Wisconsin’s professional football team: “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.” And failing to change the scoreboard doesn’t change who wins and loses.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Just ask the administration, and the establishment press.

______________________________________

Note: This column went up at Pajamas Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Wednesday.

______________________________________

Okay, I admit it. America continues to endure what has been the worst post-World War II “recovery” ever.

But you people out there who are laying this on our President, who is doing everything he can when he’s not playing golf or picking NCAA tournament brackets, are way out of line. I know this because the establishment press, which sees all and knows all (just ask ‘em), virtually never cites Barack Obama, his administration, or his policies when there’s bad economic news.

I know, seven quarters after the recession officially ended in June 2009, the economy has generated only 245,000 seasonally adjusted jobs. Over 500,000 of those jobs have come from one sector — temporary help services:

All right, so if you take away the temps, the economy has still lost jobs since the recession ended. (Here’s the breakdown of the remainder: the rest of the private sector, up 128,000; the president’s best buds in state and local government, down 429,000; and the federal government, up 38,000.)

But it’s not Barack Obama’s fault. It’s you free-market conservatives who are always whining about uncertainty who are to blame. You’re the ones who are causing employers to resist taking on full-time workers and to avoid hiring the long-term unemployed, and it’s your nonstop negativity which has caused 2.33 million people to leave the workforce in the past twelve months. On Sunday, economic icon Paul Krugman said that “uncertainty is just a myth being made up to blame this on Obama.” Do you ever see the business or economics writers at the Associated Press or elsewhere citing administration-induced uncertainty as a reason why people can’t get jobs? Of course not.

I’m sure you wingnuts can’t wait to crow about how, during the seven quarters after the last serious recession ended in the early 1980s, the economy under Ronald Reagan added 5.29 million jobs, including 5.09 million in the private sector. Big freakin’ deal. Relatively speaking, Reagan had it made. All he had to face was 13% inflation, 21% interest rates, the malaise of the previous administration, and a Congress dominated by the other party. Just because Obama came into office with low inflation, low interest rates, low gas prices, and a Democratic Congress doesn’t mean he had it any easier.

Why, look at the housing mess he inherited: a market awash in foreclosures, underwater mortgages, and moribund building activity. I know what you wingers are going to say next: Two-plus years later, we have 1.9 million homes in foreclosure, 23% of mortgaged homes underwater, and a double-dip in new homebuilding. Well, just ask Julie Schmit at USA Today why this is the case. She’ll say it’s because foreclosed homes are depressing existing-home prices; first-time buyers are being turned down by those mean old bankers who expect to get repaid; and heartless appraisers won’t inflate homes’ values. The market’s disarray has absolutely nothing to do with Obama’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP), which has only reached 600,000 of the 3-4 million homeowners it was supposed to help. Yeah, I know: “About half of all trial modifications extended through HAMP are canceled,” and “the re-default rate for HAMP mortgages is significantly higher than average.” So what’s your point? If Julie Schmit or the real estate writers at the Associated Press or Bloomberg thought that HAMP was relevant to housing market conditions, they would say so, and they haven’t. So there.

And don’t even try to claim that the still-bad housing situation is in any way related to the $20 billion shakedown — did I say “shakedown”? I meant “proposed settlement” — with those greedy lenders who screwed up their foreclosure documents. Hey, if Lizzie Warren, her untouchable, unaccountable fiefdom, and state attorneys general can force them to cram down enough homeowners’ principal balances to levels they can afford, those homeowners and their families in 2012 will vote to reelect Oba — I mean, uh, well, they’ll feel better about themselves.

You guys probably believe that gas prices, which have doubled since Obama took office, are also his fault. Well, I’ve got news for you; you’re right about that one, and he’s proud of it (in the company of right-thinking, and that means not right-wing, people). That’s because  this time it’s different, and the press knows it. In 2008, they properly blamed George W. Bush, his Big Oil buddies, and their obscene profits on a daily basis for the price run-up. But they know that this administration is letting prices increase for a noble cause. Barack Obama, EPA Director Steven Chu, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar are intent on weaning us off of evil, globe-warming fossil fuels, and they’ll do it by hook or by cr– well, by any means necessary. That’s why they slapped a moratorium on new Gulf oil drilling last year, and issued another one when a silly federal judge said they couldn’t do it. It’s also why they’re moving really slowly on new Gulf permits, revoking or preventing coal and other energy projects, and delaying — oops, I mean “studying” (wink, wink) — fracking. What more can these guys do? You can’t honestly believe that these actions are hurting the economy and jobs. Surely the business press would be telling us if this were the case. But they’re not. Besides, who are you going to believe, a bunch of knuckle-dragging Tea Partiers and bought-off energy zealots, or Nobel Prize winners Obama and Chu?

You righties probably think that Team Obama has ruined General Motors too, just because Ford outsold GM in March. Well, I have to admit that $84 billion doesn’t seem to go as far as it used to. But I can assure you that the people who claim that the administration forced GM management to devote too much of its precious time and attention to the poor-selling Chevy Volt could not be more wrong. You didn’t see it in the press, so it obviously never happened, never mind the management turnover or those longtime GM employees upset at being called “Government Motors.” (I don’t understand why they act as if being government-controlled is a bad thing.)

And just you wait until Obama, who just dictated (did I use that word? Oops) that all government vehicles will be “alt-fuel” by 2015 — well, almost all – gives away Volts to everyone in America. That’ll fix Ford’s little Blue Oval.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorialists have it right:

Who Really Wants a Shutdown?
President Obama does, but the GOP’s strategy is a lot less clear.

For people who keep saying they don’t want a government shutdown, Washington’s warring parties are sure acting like they can’t wait for it to happen. Since the policy stakes of this particular drama are so low, we can only assume this showdown is about Democrats and Republicans proving their relative political manhood.

As we went to press last night it sure looked as if President Obama wouldn’t mind a shutdown and thinks he’d benefit politically from it. The White House announced yesterday that Mr. Obama would veto the House Republican bill for a one-week temporary budget extension that would have kept federal agencies operating. That bill would have funded the military for the rest of the year, cut another $12 billion in domestic spending, and allowed more time to negotiate. The funding for the rest of this year has been a special priority of the Pentagon, which otherwise must move money around to keep funding the war effort.

Mr. Obama still said no, even though the official White House statement of policy on the bill listed no specific policy objections. So unless a deal is reached today, as of midnight tonight 800,000 government workers will be furloughed and nonessential federal operations will shut down.

… Inviting a shutdown sooner or later has looked to be the White House strategy since Mr. Obama unveiled his own budget in February that increased spending and dodged any serious budget reform. Our guess is that Mr. Obama’s political advisers have concluded that the lesson from Bill Clinton’s 1995 shutdown is that presidents win such showdowns. If they don’t believe this, why risk a shutdown over $7 billion and a few policy differences like funding for Planned Parenthood?

If Mr. Obama wants to reduce any harm from a shutdown, he also has the ability to do so. The Justice Departments of two previous Democratic Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Mr. Clinton, issued opinions with expansive views of what the executive branch could spend money on even during a shutdown. Social Security checks could still be issued, the troops could still be funded, and agencies that rely on user fees could also stay open, for example.

Yet this White House is pitching this shutdown as if it will do untold damage to the country.

… We’re not opposed to a shutdown showdown, but the policy stakes ought to be worth the political investment. The reforms in Mr. Ryan’s just-released 2012 budget are worth such a fight, as are serious and enforceable spending restrictions in return for a debt limit increase. Republicans need to prepare voters for these major policy choices. A government shutdown over $10 billion or so in a $3.5 trillion budget will be hard for voters to understand.

As noted yesterday, given the sequence of events for how legislation gets through to passage, it would be either the White House or the Senate which would make the decision to shut down the government, not the House. It it’s done over relatively minor amounts, it should be quite obvious who wanted the shutdown to occur for purely cynical political reasons.

_____________________________________________

UPDATE: At Hot Air — “Obama: I’ll veto funding for the troops.”

From Culver City, California:

Apr 2, 2011 / 06:08 pm

Holy Wood Acting Studio had its grand opening on March 25 to begin its mission to create talented actors with the “emotional and spiritual maturity” to endure the challenges in their careers.

“The opening of Holy Wood Acting Studio represents a new era for the entertainment industry, an era where actors will not only thrill audiences with amazing performances, but also inspire them through moral, intellectual, and spiritual integrity,” the Culver City, Calif. studio said in a statement.

Participants at the event helped create an inspiring and exciting atmosphere they hope will set the tone for many years of actor training and personal development, the studio said.

Attendees included Fr. Willy Raymond, president of Family Theater Productions, and actor Navid Negahban of “The Stoning of Soraya M.” and “Charlie Wilson’s War.”

Telenovela actor and model Gonzalo Garcia Vivanco, famous for many soap operas in Mexico and Colombia, was at the event. Also there was evangelist Richard Shakarian, a Christian businessman from Los Angeles whose father founded the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International.

The studio’s operational director Max Espinosa opened the event, explaining the aim of the studio is to prepare students to be both successful actors and complete human beings.

He noted the “Four Pillars” of the study program: Acting, Personal Growth and Development, Leadership, and Health and Fitness. These are combined with Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to produce actors who are masters of the craft and masters of themselves.

Holy Wood Studio is unique in its incorporation of the late Pope’s approach to spirituality. He emphasized the individual dignity and complementary roles of men and women, while showing how the drama of romantic love can only find fulfillment in marriage.

The studios’ opening ceremony featured video testimonials made by the students and teachers of a pilot seminar. They spoke of the studio’s potential to transform the lives of both students and teachers. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

At the urging of a commenter, I decided to look at the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy’s performance on job destruction since that sad era began on about June 1, 2008 (evidence continues to mount that its beginning may have been in May or even April, but we’re grading on a curve tonight.

Here is what has happened with government employment, private-sector employment excluding those employed by temporary help services, and those employed as temps:

Heckuva job, Nancy, Barry, and Harry.

The repeal of Obamacare’s nightmarish 1099 requirement has passed both chambers of Congress and is on its way to the President for his expected signature.

In reporting Tuesday on the repeal bill’s progress, the Associated Press’s headline writers assured readers that the original requirement in Obamacare was a “small” component of it. The AP’s Stephen Ohlemacher also misstated current 1099 filing requirements, ignored the repeal bill’s de facto tax increases (i.e., reductions of tax credits) that were crammed into the bill to “pay” for lost revenue that will supposedly result from repeal, and glossed over the fact that the requirement made it into law because almost no one read the Obamacare legislation in the first place. Other than that, the AP report isn’t too bad. (/sarc)

Here are key paragraphs from Ohlemacher’s report (bolds and number tags are mine):

Congress votes to repeal small part of health law

Congress sent the White House its first rollback of last year’s health care law Tuesday, a bipartisan repeal of a burdensome tax reporting requirement that’s widely unpopular with businesses. Even President Barack Obama is eager to see it gone.

The Senate voted 87 to 12 to repeal the filing requirement, which would have forced millions of businesses to file tax forms for every vendor selling them more than $600 in goods each year, starting in 2012. The filing requirement is unrelated to health care. However, it would have been used to pay for part of the new health law.

… The filing requirement was projected to raise nearly $25 billion over the next decade by ensuring that vendors pay their taxes. [1] Under the bill, the money will be made up by changing another part of the health care law, requiring more families to repay tax credits designed to help them cover insurance premiums, if their incomes increase beyond certain levels. [2]

Republicans said the filing provision is an example of what happens when lawmakers hastily patch together a massive bill like the health care overhaul, then vote to pass it without knowing everything that’s in it. [3] Lawmakers from both parties say the filing requirement could create a paperwork nightmare for businesses and the Internal Revenue Service.

… Businesses already must file Form 1099s with the IRS when they purchase more than $600 in services from a vendor in a year. [4] The new provision would have extended the requirement to the purchase of goods, starting in 2012.

The requirement would hit about 38 million businesses, charities and tax-exempt organizations, many of them small businesses already swamped by government paperwork, according to a report by the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent watchdog within the IRS.

… Starting in 2014, the new health care law will provide tax credits to low- and middle-income families to help pay health insurance premiums, if they don’t get insurance through their employers.

… Under the law, if a family’s income increases, and the family members no longer qualify for the tax credits, or qualify for a smaller amount, they would have to repay a portion of those tax credits when they file their federal tax returns. [2] The bill passed Tuesday would increase the amount people would have to repay, generating a projected $25 billion over the next decade.

Notes:

[1] — As usual, Congress failed to estimate the out-of-pocket costs and hits to productivity businesses would have had to incur to comply. Those costs would have reduced the taxable incomes of millions of affected businesses of all types, reducing collections of personal income, corporate income, and Social Security/Medicare taxes. Those reduced collections would have partially if not completely wiped out the supposed $25 billion increase in tax revenues supposedly arising from increased compliance, and should have made the travesty in point [2] which follows unnecessary.

[2] — Don’t you love the passivity in the phrases “if their income increases,” and “if a family’s income increases” — like the money just falls out of the sky for no apparent reason? Here’s what this translates to in the real world: If a person works harder and as a result earns more money, or if another family member gets a job enabling the family to earn more money, Uncle Sam will take away a large and sometimes huge portion of the health care premium subsidy they were entitled to when they weren’t working so hard. As I read it, the subsidy takeaway will now be even steeper than what Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation estimated in early 2010 when Obamacare legislation was advancing through Congress. Here is how it looked then, based on data Rector compiled in a detailed study of the legislation as passed by the House in the fall of 2009:

As I explained in March 2010:

The orange boxes represent examples where the subsidy decrease amounts to almost 80% or more than 80% of a couple’s $5,000 increase in combined or joint income. After adding another 7.65% for Social Security and Medicare taxes on top of the typical 15% (or higher) marginal federal income tax rate, the extra $5,000 earned will cost the couple more than $5,000 — even before considering state and local income taxes.

Then there are the purple boxes, where subsidy loss alone amounts to more than $5,000, including one case where it’s more than double that, before considering any other taxes.

Given the disincentives, many and probably most lower- and middle-income Americans will conclude that there’s no point in accepting promotions, working overtime, getting a second job, or attempting any other form of financial self-improvement (except perhaps under the table).

As I interpret the AP’s report, the 1099 repeal bill’s “increase (in) the (subsidy/tax credit) amount people would have to repay” worsens the disincentives, something that hardly seemed possible. But never underestimate Congress, apparently even when the House is controlled by Republicans.

[3] — “Without knowing everything that’s in it” = “Without having read it.” Republicans all too typically seem to have missed an opportunity to remind their constituents of the fact that, as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi brazenly bragged, we had to wait until Obamacare passed to find out what was in it.

[4] — Ohlemacher misstated current law concerning who is required to file 1099s. Issuing a 1099 is not always required when you have purchased “more than $600 in services from a vendor in a year.” As the 2010 instructions for Form 1099 in the second column on Page 1 state, it is generally not required for “payments to a corporation.” With relatively narrow exceptions, vendor 1099s are generally sent only to sole proprietors and partnerships. The Obamacare 1099 expansion would have been twofold, requiring issuance for services provided by corporations for the first time, while also extending the requirement to all purchases of goods.

A further thought regarding Item [2]: John Boehner & Co. must be feeling pretty good about repeal through the courts. If their confidence is misplaced, the tax increases built into the repeal bill will turn out to have been a more than minor betrayal.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Truth 1: If the House passes a bill to continue funding the government, be it a short-term continuing resolution or one covering the rest of the fiscal year, and Harry Reid’s Senate refuses to pass it, it is Harry Reid’s Senate which will have decided to shut down the government.

Truth 2: If the House passes a bill to continue funding the government, be it a short-term continuing resolution or one covering the rest of the fiscal year, and Harry Reid’s Senate then passes it intact, but the President vetoes the legislation, it is President Barack Obama who will have decided to shut down the government.

Truth 3: If the House passes a bill to fund the military to avoid having it be part of a government shutdown, and Harry Reid’s Senate refuses to pass it, it is Harry Reid’s Senate which will have decided to cut off our citizen soldiers serving here and overseas.

Truth 4: If the House passes a bill to fund the military to avoid having it be part of a government shutdown, and Harry Reid’s Senate then passes it intact, but the President vetoes the legislation, it is President Barack Obama who will have decided to cut off our citizen soldiers serving here and overseas.

These fundamental truths are not arguable; it’s how our government works. All the press spin, White House spin, Democratic Party spin, and historical revisionism in the world will never change them.