From the report’s summary bolds and footnotes are mine; paragraph breaks added by me):

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy [1] and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years.

This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. [2] After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.

Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. [3]

After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036 [4], one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.

[1] – The POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy strikes again. In barely a year, it turned what were $100-plus surpluses into serious cash deficits. The ongoing damage continues. Before the POR Economy began, cash deficits weren’t projected to begin until 2017. They began in 2010.

[2] – That should read “IF” the economy strengthens, not “as.”

[3] – “Annual cash deficits” are being “made up” with general taxes — from a government that is running $1.4 trillion and more in annual deficits and is $14 trillion in debt. Socially Security is functionally bankrupt.

[4] – If nothing is done, we’ll meander along for the next 25 years (2036 minus 2011), down from last year’s projected 27 years (2037 minus 2010). That’s IF the economy turns around. If it doesn’t, the 25% cut date will loom ever sooner with each passing year.

From Vatican City:

May 12, 2011 / 08:07 pm

Pope Benedict XVI today urged Catholics and Jews to “stand together” in facing some of the greatest challenges facing mankind today.

“There are many ways in which Jews and Christians can cooperate for the betterment of the world in accordance with the will of the Almighty for the good of mankind. Our thoughts turn immediately to practical works of charity and service to the poor and those in need,” the Pope told a delegation from the Jewish humanitarian society B’nai B’rith International at the Vatican May 12.

“One of the most important things that we can do together is bear common witness to our deeply-held belief that every man and woman is created in the divine image and thus possessed of inviolable dignity. This conviction remains the most secure basis for every effort to defend and promote the inalienable rights of each human being.”

B’nai B’rith is one of the oldest Jewish humanitarian, advocacy and human rights groups in the world.

It was founded by German-Jewish immigrants in New York’s Lower East Side back in 1843. Its aim then was to alleviate the poverty which afflicted many Jewish immigrants to the city. It now operates in more than 50 countries around the globe.

The Pope commended their work as helping to promote “a sound understanding of the role of religion in the life of our present-day societies.”

“The life and work of all believers should bear constant witness to the transcendent, point to the invisible realities which lie beyond us, and embody the conviction that a loving, compassionate Providence guides the final outcome of history, no matter how difficult and threatening the journey along the way may sometimes appear.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Apparently, the state of California has been trying to do something about the runaway costs of its “traditional welfare” program. Nationally, it’s known as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). In the tarnished Golden State, it’s called CalWORKS (California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids).

Wednesday, the supposedly nonpartisan but clearly left-leaning California Budget Project (CBP) issued a report entitled “Recent Cuts to CalWORKs Have Significantly Affected Families and Local Communities.” At the Sacramento Business Journal, Staff Writer Kathy Robertson essentially transcribed its major points. Had she done further work, she would have noted that the number of CalWORKs recipients, already over triple the national average as a percentage of the population, increased by another quarter-million during the past 27 reported months (June 2008 to September 2010) to 1.46 million. That total is almost 4% of the state’s population. The welfare-receiving percentage of the population in the rest of the country, including a few other states which have allowed their rolls to unreasonably balloon, is less than 1.2%.

Here are several paragraphs from Robertson’s report:

Report: Welfare, disability cuts take local toll

The cumulative impact of state cuts to welfare recipients and low-income California seniors and people with disabilities amounts to more than $8 billion over the three-year period ending June 30, 2012, a report by the nonpartisan California Budget Project concluded.

The welfare cuts add up to $3.5 billion over this period, equivalent to a loss of roughly $3,100 for each of the 1.1 million children in the program.

… The welfare program — called CalWORKS — provides cash assistance to low-income families with children while helping parents find work and overcome barriers to employment. State budget cuts have reduced cash assistance, scaled back the earnings limit below the federal poverty line, cut funding for employment services and child care and — effective this July — rolled back the time limit for support to four years from five.

A total of 40,120 families and 73,670 children in the four-county Sacramento area will lose almost $242.5 million in support by the end of the next fiscal year.

… The maximum monthly grant for individuals will drop to the federal minimum of $830 in July, a reduction of $77 per month compared to the maximum grant of $907 in January 2009.

CBP’s $3,100 figure uses clearly deceptive math by presenting a 3-year figure for the purpose of creating a big number, and by further assuming that the cuts will only affect children and not adult recipients. Correctly applied math would mean that the cuts amount to $801 per person per year ($3.5 billion divided by 1.46 million divided by 3), or $67 per person per month ($200 for a family of three). That doesn’t sound so bad, especially when you consider that the vast majority of recipients more than likely qualify for food stamps, where the Maximum Monthly Allotment for a family of three for fiscal 2011 is $526 (the same as fiscal 2010 presented at the link), an increase of $100, or 19%, over fiscal 2008.

The problem in California, religiously ignored by its establishment press as long as I have been following related developments, continues to be its outsized caseload, as a comparison to the eight worst other states, DC, and the rest of the country shows:

If its welfare recipients constituted the same percentage of its population as the rest of the country, California’s welfare rolls would total less than 440,000 (1.17% times 37.267 million per the July 1, 2010 census). If the state didn’t have more than 1,000,000 more people on welfare than it arguably should, the program changes CBP is decrying may not have been necessary.

As to the CBP’s objectivity, give me a break:

• Its Board of Directors includes Dean Tipps, Retired Executive Secretary of the California State Council of Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Ellen Wu, Executive Director of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network; and several other welfare state advocacy group official.
• Its Executive Director since its 1995 inception also has SEIU background.
• One of its core principles is that “government should work to improve the lives of the people it serves.” (No, government should in most cases get out of the way so people can improve their own lives while helping those who legitimately cannot help themselves.)
• No objective think tank could possibly look at CalWORKs without questioning its self-evidently bloated caseload. It’s clear that CBP simply takes it as a given.

The fact is that Democrat-dominated California has resisted implementing the national welfare reform initiatives enacted in 1996. Since it doesn’t have the nerve to address its caseload overload, it’s cutting benefits instead. This is where misplaced compassion and bureaucratic stubbornness lead when you start running out of other people’s money. You would think someone like Kathy Robertson, who after all writes for a business publication, would understand that.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

The latest AP-GfK poll conducted on May 5-9 and released on May 11 is the third of three poll whose partisan weightings have changed as indicated on the right.

In my next Pajamas Media column which will appear shortly, I write that “Because the polls are not representative, and because they have become successively less representative in their last three efforts, at least two dozen assertions made in the three AP reports … are not supported by the underlying poll results.”

What follows is a less than complete list of unsupportable assertions (the three reports involved have been saved at my web host for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes):

May 11, 7:16 a.m., Liz Sidoti and Jennifer Agiesta; “AP-GfK poll: Obama approval hits 60 percent” –

“President Barack Obama’s approval rating has hit its highest point in two years – 60 percent – and more than half of Americans now say he deserves to be re-elected …”

“… the president’s standing improved not just on foreign policy but also on the economy …”

“Nearly three-fourths (of Americans) – 73 percent – also now say they are confident that Obama can effectively handle terrorist threats.”

“Despite a sluggish recovery from the Great Recession, 52 percent of Americans now approve of Obama’s stewardship of the economy, giving him his best rating on that issue since the early days of his presidency …”

“Also, more Americans – 45 percent, up from 35 percent in March – say the country is headed in the right direction.”

“Obama’s overall political boost comes at an important time. He is embarking on his re-election campaign and is in the early days of a debate with Republicans who control the House over raising the country’s debt limit. But it’s unclear how long Obama’s strengthened standing will last in the aftermath of bin Laden’s death.”

“Overall, Obama’s approval rating is up slightly from 53 percent in March and a 47 percent low point following last fall’s midterm congressional elections …”

“Also, 53 percent now say he deserves to be re-elected; 43 percent say he should be fired …”

Sixty-nine percent say Obama will keep America safe, up from 61 percent in March; 65 percent call him a ‘strong leader,’ up from 57 percent.”

“Sixty-three percent say Obama cares about people like them; 63 percent also say that he understands the problems of ordinary Americans.”

“Sixty-three percent view Obama favorably, up from 59 percent in March.”

“Nearly two-thirds of people – 61 percent – disapprove of his handling on gas prices, even though there’s little a president can do about them.”

“Less than half give him positive marks on dealing with the federal budget deficit or taxes, two big upcoming issues.”

******

May 11, 8:31 a.m., and Jennifer Agiesta; “AP-GfK Poll: Bin Laden killing was justified” –

“More Americans – 45 percent, up from 35 percent in March – say the country is headed in the right direction. Still, about half – 52 percent – say things are heading the wrong way, reflecting the effect of more polarizing domestic issues such as the economy, federal budget deficit and health care overhaul.”

“Despite a sluggish recovery from the Great Recession, 52 percent of Americans now approve of Obama’s stewardship of the economy, giving him his best rating on that issue since the early days of his presidency.”

“Overall, Obama’s approval rating is up to 60 percent from 53 percent in March and the 47 percent low point following last fall’s congressional elections.”

“The AP-GfK results were striking in that they found Obama with a higher approval rating than other recent polls that generally said he was in the low 50s.”

“On the other hand, the poll showed Americans are a little less worried about becoming victims of terrorism themselves. Thirty-three percent said they often or sometimes worry, down slightly from 37 percent last November and 40 percent in January 2010. Thirty-three percent said they are very or somewhat worried that they or a member of their family might become victims of a terrorist attack, about on par with 35 percent who said so two years ago.”

“But the new poll found a marked increase in public approval of Obama’s handling of the war. Sixty-five percent said they approve, compared with 55 percent in an AP-GfK survey in late March and 48 percent last November.”

“On the broader question of Obama’s handling of terrorism, 72 percent approved, compared to 61 percent in March. His gains were even more dramatic among those who said they strongly approve: 40 percent, compared to 25 percent in March.”

******

May 12, 10:00 a.m., Jim Kuhnhenn; “AP-GfK poll: Americans more upbeat about economy” –

“Americans are growing more optimistic about the U.S. economy, a sentiment that is benefiting President Barack Obama despite public disenchantment with his handling of rising gasoline prices and swollen government budget deficits.”

“An Associated Press-GfK poll shows that more than 2 out of 5 people believe the U.S. economy will get better, while a third think it will stay the same and nearly a fourth think it will get worse, a rebound from last month’s more pessimistic attitude.”

“And, for the first time since the 100-day mark of his presidency, slightly more than half approve of Obama’s stewardship of the economy.”

“The results of the AP-GfK poll stood out because other surveys taken after bin Laden’s death, while showing a spike in support for the president, continued to indicate dissatisfaction by a majority for his handling of the economy.”

“Forty-five percent of those polled in the AP-GfK survey said the country was now moving in the right direction, an increase of 10 percentage points from five weeks ago.”

“About 1 in 5 thought the economy got better during the past month; an equal number thought it got worse.”

Stay tuned.

_________________________

UPDATE, May 18: The related May 16 PJM column is here (mirrored here at BizzyBlog). The May 16 BizzyBlog tease, which include’s GfK’s defensive video, is here.

From Christopher Rugaber at the Associated Press, on today’s Consumer Price Index release:

Consumers paid more for gas and food in April, pushing inflation to its highest level in two and a half years. But so far this month, inflationary pressures have begun to ease.

The Consumer Price Index increased 0.4 percent in April, the Labor Department said. In the past 12 months, prices have risen 3.2 percent. That’s the biggest 12-month gain since October 2008.

Excluding volatile food and energy, prices ticked up 0.2 percent and have risen only 1.3 percent this year. That’s double the gain posted six months ago, but still below the level the Federal Reserve considers a healthy pace of inflation.

The only way to interpret the bolded sentence’s 1.3% figure is that it represents the ex-food and energy inflation that took place in January, February, March and April (i.e., “this year). That would be a problem, as it would annualize out to 3.95%.

That’s not the case, as a quick visit to today’s CPI report at the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows:

The 1.3% Rubager cites is reported is really ex-food and energy inflation during the past 12 months.

What slop.

Reviews of Mitt Romney’s speech on health care yesterday are not good. Excerpts from various sources follow (bolds are mine throughout).

Investors Business Daily:

As expected, Mitt Romney did not repudiate his health care overhaul in Massachusetts as he outlined the medical policies he wants instituted at the federal level. We have the feeling he just doesn’t get it.

… (The speech’s) good points … are negated by a common thread that weaves the programs together: the individual mandate, which requires the uninsured to buy health care coverage. Whether compulsory at the state or federal level, it is not a legitimate or moral function of a government, any government, to force an ostensibly free person to buy something he or she has determined he or she doesn’t want or need.

… we are disappointed that Romney could not bring himself to walk away from his Massachusetts plan, to announce that he made a mistake. To do so, he said, “wouldn’t be honest.”

We want to be honest, too. Despite Thursday’s strong performance, many GOP voters will remain squeamish over Romney’s Massachusetts plan, a heavy anchor that he’ll be dragging around the campaign circuit.

The New York Times (“Mitt Romney in a Time Warp”) may not appreciate how savage its condemnation really is — from a sensible conservative standpoint:

… Mr. Romney tried desperately to pivot from praising his handiwork in Massachusetts to trashing the very same idea as adapted by Mr. Obama. His was an efficient and effective state policy; Mr. Obama’s was “a power grab by the federal government.”

He tried to justify this with a history lesson on federalism and state experimentation, but, in fact, he said nothing about what makes Massachusetts different from its neighbors or any other state. And why would he immediately repeal the Obama mandate if elected president? Because Mr. Obama wants a “government takeover of health care,” while all he wanted was to insure the uninsured.

That distinction makes no sense, and the disconnect undermines the foundation of Mr. Romney’s candidacy. At heart, he is still the kind of old-fashioned northeastern Republican who believes in government’s role while trying to conceal it under a thin, inauthentic coating of conservative outrage.

Allah at Hot Air (“Romney’s speech on RomneyCare: I’m not sorry“; internal links are in original):

The moment of truth has come and gone but the horrified real-time reaction in the conservative twittersphere echoes on. These nuggets from Philip Klein, Jonah Goldberg, and Mollie Hemingway will give you a taste; liberal Ezra Klein came closest to capturing the spirit of the thing while our old pal KP (Kirsten Powers) wondered whether Mitt’s ever actually met a Republican primary voter. I’m not surprised that he doubled down, though.

The Wall Street Journal (“Romney’s Daredevil Act; On health care, Mitt tries to bridge the unbridgeable”):

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote that “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” If we may judge by his health-care speech at the University of Michigan yesterday, Mitt Romney is a very smart man.

The likely Republican Presidential candidate fulfilled the White House’s fondest wishes, defending the mandate-subsidize-overregulate program he enacted as Massachusetts Governor in 2006 even as he denounced President Obama’s national reprise. He then proposed his own U.S. reform that is sensible and might do so some actual good, but which also runs against the other two plans. These are unbridgeable policy and philosophical differences, though Mr. Romney is nonetheless trying to leap over them like Evel Knievel heading for the Snake River Canyon.

… But if Massachusetts is the triumph that Mr. Romney claimed yesterday, well, what’s the problem with Washington exporting the same successful model? If an individual mandate to purchase health insurance was indispensable in the Bay State, as Mr. Romney argued, why isn’t it necessary in every other state too?

… The political tragedy is that Mr. Romney could have emerged as one of ObamaCare’s most potent critics had he made different choices two years ago amid one of the country’s most consequential debates in generations. He might have said that as Governor he made a good-faith effort to resolve some of health care’s long-running dysfunctions, but that it hadn’t worked out and that’s why state experiments are valuable.

… He even said yesterday that he would do it all over again in Massachusetts, which means he is in for a year in which Republicans attack him on policy while Democrats defend him on policy but attack him as a hypocrite.

I don’t expect Mitt to buy a clue, do America a favor, and walk away, because he has something in common with the current Narcissist in Chief: It’s all about him.

___________________________________________________

UPDATE: Mitt Romney’s biggest talk-radio $upporter is still running on Romney kool-aid — ”

If Romney is the nominee, and polls put him in a strong position now, he will have to answer Team Obama’s absurd charges about Massachusetts care. Today demonstrated how he would do so. And it isn’t an exchange the president would welcome in an October 2012 debate.

Utter fantasy; Romney as the nominee would be Team Obama’s dream come true.

From Madrid:

May 9, 2011 / 01:40 pm (CNA/Europa Press).- Some 340,000 young people from more than 170 countries have signed up to participate in World Youth Day Madrid.

The main objective of the event, World Youth Day 2011′s executive director said, is “so young people experience Madrid as a welcoming city and that their days here be unforgettable.”

Events are scheduled for Aug. 16 – 21 and include a vigil and Mass with Pope Benedict XVI.

The head of this year’s World Youth Day, Yago de la Cierva, said the planning phase ended in January 2011. Since then, organizers have been working with the Vatican and Madrid city officials on implementing the plans. A large contingent of full and part-time volunteers were marshaled to manage logistics.

The culture and faith of Spain will be front and center the director added, emphasizing that “everything ought to be rooted in the 20 centuries of Catholic tradition in this country.”

World Youth Day will begin on Aug. 16 with an opening Mass followed by various events until Aug. 18, when Pope Benedict XVI will be welcomed at Cibeles Square.

The next day the Way of the Cross will be prayed and the weekend will be spent at the Cuatro Vientos airfield. A vigil will take place there on Saturday night and the closing Mass will be celebrated on Sunday morning.

Pope Benedict XVI will also meet with university professors, women religious, seminarians, volunteers, those with disabilities and the sick. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Can someone call himself a Tea Party candidate even though he has no visible support from local Tea Party groups and has been asked by one of them not to run? The Associated Press’s Carolyn Thompson apparently thinks so.

Thompson’s 3:03 p.m. report (saved here for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes) makes no mention of congressional candidate Jack Davis’s lack of Tea Party group support. The AP reporter also waited until the final paragraph of her 17-paragraph report to tell readers that Davis is “a wealthy Republican businessman” who ran for Congress in 2004, 2006, and 2008 — as a Democrat.

The large body of evidence that Davis is not a legitimate Tea Party candidate consists of at least the following:

• On April 6, William Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection asserted that “Davis is a spoiler, does not represent the Tea Party movement or conservatives, and his campaign is being run a self-described progressive operative.”
• On March 24, Moe Lane at RedState writes that the campaign manager, Curt Ellis, is a former diarist at Talking Points Memo, a leftist site, and quotes Ellis as saying the following about the Tea Party: “They fancy themselves the vanguard of a revolution, when in fact they are typical self-absorbed, privileged children used to having their way — now – and uninhibited about complaining loudly when they don’t. It’s the same demographic Spiro Agnew called ‘an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.’”
• On March 25, Roll Call reported that “Leaders of the largest tea party organization in Western New York have called on Jack Davis to exit the 26th district special election,” alleging that “his advisors and campaign manager are trying to pull a power play for self aggrandizement and power.”
• On April 6, Sam Foster at Left Coast Rebel in a post entitled “Months after Tea Partiers were Protesting, Jack Davis was supporting progressive politicians,” documented mid-2009 contributions of $1,000 to the following Democrats –Dan Maffei on June 30; $1,000 to Brian Higgins on June 25; $1,000 to Eric Massa on June 30; $1,000 to Louise “demon pass” Slaughter July 1; and Steven Kagen on August 4.

Thompson’s report addresses a YouTube-posted incident (also embedded at Hot Air, where Jazz Shaw’s post is headlined “Fake Tea Party Candidate Assaults Cameraman”) which occurred on Wednesday. What follows are the first seven paragraphs from Thompson’s report, with her “oh by the way” final paragraph added at the end:

A 15-second video shows a tea party congressional candidate in New York scuffling with a Republican Party volunteer who questioned his absence from a debate.

The video posted on YouTube shows candidate Jack Davis asking the volunteer Wednesday whether he wants to “punch it out” after a campaign event in Greece, outside Rochester.

Davis was responding to the man’s repeated calls for him to explain why he backed out of a debate held Thursday in Buffalo.

Davis announced Wednesday he’d changed his mind about participating in the debate with the two major party candidates in the May 24 special election for the 26th District seat. Instead, he said he’d speak to voters directly via an electronic town hall meeting May 21.

In the video, the 78-year-old candidate steps toward the volunteer, who was holding a camera and asking, “Why did you back out of the debate? Why did you back out of the debate?”

“Do you want to punch it out?” Davis asks before swiping at the camera with his right hand.

Davis then laughs as he walks to his car while a man who appears to be a Davis campaign aide approaches the cameraman. As the camera shakes, the cameraman groans out of view as if he has been struck and then resumes asking Davis, “Why did you back out of the debate?”

… Davis, a wealthy Republican businessman, ran for the congressional seat as a Democrat in 2004, 2006 and 2008. A late April Siena poll showed him at 23 percent in the Republican-leaning western New York district. The poll showed 36 percent of likely voters supporting Corwin and 31 percent favoring Hochul. Green Party candidate Ian Murphy trailed with 5 percent.

By ignoring clear evidence that is several weeks old that Davis is not a legitimate Tea Partier — up to and including contributions to political candidates whose philosophies are diametrically opposed to the Tea Party’s Constitution-based, sensible conservatism — and by saving the inconvenient truth about Davis’s Democratic Party candidacies until the final paragraph, Thompson’s work comes across as an opportunistic attempt to smear legitimate Tea Party activists as supporters of an unhinged candidate prone to thuggishness. If not, Carolyn, why did you write your report as you did, and why did you ignore the volumes of evidence discrediting Jack Davis’s legitimacy?

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

And of course, the prior week’s “O…M…G” number was revised even higher:

Reax from Christopher Rugaber at the Associated Press:

The drop suggests that the increase of 47,000 reported last week was mostly due to temporary factors. The state of New York reported that applications jumped by more than 24,000 two weeks ago, because more school systems had spring break than usual. That led to a spike in temporary layoffs. A new extended benefits program in Oregon had caused applications to rise in that state.

Okay, I guess that means that the “new normal” is 430,000 or so new claims a week — in the 23rd month after the end of the recession, when by Rugaber’s own admission in his report the number needs to consistently be 375,000 or lower for sustainable job growth (BTW, that seems like a bit of bar-lowering, but investigating that will have to wait).

Also, in the “Of Course He Ignored This” Dept. — Rugaber “somehow” forgot to report today’s number was higher than expectations of 423,000. Update: Reuters thought it would be 430,000.

Guest-blogging at Instapundit, Ed Driscoll writes that today’s Wall Street Journal editorial (“Obama’s Running Mate”) “buries Mitt Romney.” We should be so lucky.

That said, the Journal, on the eve of the Mittster’s supposedly important health care speech, hits Romney very hard. Every broadside is richly deserved. Here are excerpts (bolds are mine):

… As everyone knows, the health reform Mr. Romney passed in 2006 as Massachusetts Governor was the prototype for President Obama’s version and gave national health care a huge political boost. Mr. Romney now claims ObamaCare should be repealed, but his failure to explain his own role or admit any errors suggests serious flaws both in his candidacy and as a potential President.

***

There’s a lot to learn from the failure of the ObamaCare model that began in Massachusetts, which is now moving to impose price controls on all hospitals, doctors and other providers. Not that anyone would know listening to Mr. Romney. In the paperback edition of his campaign book “No Apology,” he calls the plan a “success,” and he has defended it in numerous media appearances as he plans his White House run.

… When Mr. Romney took office in 2003, the state was already enforcing public utility-style regulation of insurers for premiums and multiple benefit mandates. The resulting distortions were increasing rates fast, along with the natural increases from good but expensive Massachusetts medicine.

… (RomneyCare’s) conceit was that a universal reform would cover everyone and all but pay for itself by reorganizing the state’s health-care finances. Since 1985, Massachusetts footed most of the bill when the uninsured showed up for treatment through a $800 million fund for uncompensated care. That money, along with extra federal Medicaid dollars under a special waiver, would subsidize lower- and middle-income residents.

In the name of personal responsibility, Mr. Romney also introduced the individual mandate, first in the nation, requiring everyone to buy coverage or else pay a penalty.

… The only good news we can find is that the uninsured rate has dropped to 2% today from 6% in 2006. Yet four out of five of the newly insured receive low- or no-cost coverage from the government. The subsidies will cost at least $830 million in 2011 and are growing, conservatively measured, at 5.1% a year. Total state health-care spending as a share of the budget has grown from about 16% in the 1980s to 30% in 2006 to 40% today. The national state average is about 25%.

The safety-net fund that was supposed to be unwound, well, wasn’t. Uncompensated hospital care rose 5% from 2008 to 2009, and 15% from 2009 to 2010, hitting $475 million (though the state only paid out $405 million). “Avoidable” use of emergency rooms—that is, for routine care like a sore throat—increased 9% between 2004 and 2008. Meanwhile, unsubsidized insurance premiums for individuals and small businesses have climbed to among the highest in the nation.

Like Mr. Obama’s reform, RomneyCare was predicated on the illusion that insurance would be less expensive if everyone were covered. Even if this theory were plausible, it is not true in Massachusetts today. So as costs continue to climb, Mr. Romney’s Democratic successor now wants to create a central board of political appointees to decide how much doctors and hospitals should be paid for thousands of services.

The Romney camp blames all this on a failure of execution, not of design. But by this cause-and-effect standard, Mr. Romney could push someone out of an airplane and blame the ground for killing him. Once government takes on the direct or implicit liability of paying for health care for everyone, the only way to afford it is through raw political control of all medical decisions.

Mr. Romney’s refusal to appreciate this, then and now, reveals a troubling failure of political understanding and principle. …

… In reality, his ostensible liberal allies like the late Ted Kennedy saw an opening to advance their own priorities, and in Mr. Romney they took advantage of a politician who still doesn’t seem to understand how government works. It’s no accident that RomneyCare’s most vociferous defenders now are in the White House and left-wing media and think tanks. They know what happened, even if he doesn’t.

***

For a potential President whose core argument is that he knows how to revive free market economic growth, this amounts to a fatal flaw. Presidents lead by offering a vision for the country rooted in certain principles, not by promising a technocracy that runs on “data.” Mr. Romney’s highest principle seems to be faith in his own expertise.

More immediately for his Republican candidacy, the debate over ObamaCare and the larger entitlement state may be the central question of the 2012 election. On that question, Mr. Romney is compromised and not credible. If he does not change his message, he might as well try to knock off Joe Biden and get on the Obama ticket.

I would go much further and say that it’s way too late for Romney to “change his message.” He’s had five years. As is the case in so many other areas, he’s compromised, not credible … and, as I’ve been saying since December 2007, objectively unfit.

From Lima, Peru:

May 9, 2011 / 08:46 pm

A letter John Paul II sent in 1991 to a prisoner in Lima, Peru increased the inmate’s faith and inspired him “to continue his evangelization efforts while incarcerated.

Carlos Turrin Villanueva spent 10 years behind bars for the crime of terrorism at the Castro Castro Prison in Lima, Peru.

Turrin, who was released in 1999, told CNA that months before receiving the papal letter, he had written to John Paul II without expecting a response. “He was so busy and received so many letters that I never thought he would take notice of a prisoner,” Turrin said.

In his message, the Pope thanked Turrin for writing to him and offered his prayers that “through the intercession of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, the Lord will strengthen you in the faith and grant you continual peace and Christian prosperity.” He also bestowed an apostolic blessing on Turrin and his loved ones.

Turrin recalled the difficulties of living the Christian life and evangelizing inside the prison. At that time, “around 1989-90, the only ones who could control and manage our block in the prison was the Shining Path, and we were the enemy.”

The Shining Path was a terrorist organization responsible for numerous anti-government attacks throughout the 1980s and 90s.

“The leaders of our small Christian communities were the targets of death threats, psychological threats, physical assaults and abuse. Almost all of us were physically and psychologically abused, but that was the cost of our conversion, and we accepted it,” he said.

The terrorist group’s displeasure with Turrin’s prison ministry grew worse as the number of members in his Christian community increased from 15 to 100.

“A time came in which prisoners were evangelizing prisoners; we assumed the leadership because at that time it was almost impossible for priests and religious to visit. Eventually, 12 Christian communities were established, one in each prison block. Each year many prisoners consecrated themselves to the Virgin Mary. We even were able organize festivals for life and peace, activities that were powerful and unheard of at that time, when we were living under a harsh regime,” he said.

“However, God allowed all of these events to take place – as if we were free – with prizes, contests, etc.,” Turrin said.

He said that seeing the beatification of John Paul II “was a profound experience, because deep inside I thought about how this Pope, who was kind enough to write me a letter, is today beatified.” …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Just barely a year after it derided the establishment media’s obsession over oil-affected birds in the Gulf of Mexico while virtually ignoring the loss human life in awful floods in Tennessee (noted at the time at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), Investors Business Daily’s editorialists are calling out the press for oversaturating us with Obama-OBL victory lap coverage at the expense of informing the nation about the severity of this year’s horrible Mississippi River flooding.

IBD makes great points in the following excerpts (bolds are mine):

In a record year for natural disasters, the Mississippi’s worst flooding since 1927 may be the year’s most consequential. It ought to lead the news. But the Beltway media-political complex is more interested in press games.

… to be fair, it’s not because the local press in affected areas haven’t done decent reporting.

The problem lies in Washington. The White House has made no declarations, showed no leadership, and done all it can to keep the issue off the front page.

It has quietly declared disaster areas in parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, but not even issued a statement of support for the 4,000 families in this storied region of American literary and musical traditions who have lost their homes.

Nor, apparently, did Obama even look out his Air Force One window to see the devastation below as he flew to Texas to raise campaign funds.

Instead, we see the old Washington power game played out between White House operatives and the press: the steady drip, drip, drip of little details about the SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden.

This keeps that Obama-centered story on the front page — and the biggest flooding in a century, off.

… The flooding provides the White House with no political advantage. If anything, it shows that despite $787 billion in federal stimulus, the U.S. flood control system remains archaic. During Hurricane Katrina, that was a big issue. During this Mississippi crisis, it’s not.

… a flood of this magnitude ought to be an occasion for White House leadership, because most certainly the last one was: “The 1927 event flooded almost 1% of the entire United States and absolutely riveted the nation’s attention, probably even more so than (Hurricane) Katrina,” said John M. Barry, author of “Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood And How It Changed America” in an interview with NPR.

For some reason, this one doesn’t.

Other portions of the IBD editorial point to potentially serious economic impacts resulting from the floods, including threats to two oil refineries, just in time for summer driving season. That’s when the press will take notice of the disaster — when they’re looking for ready-made reasons why the price of gas has reached record levels, and why the economy continues to seriously underperform both current expectations and the Reagan post-recession boom years.

I should also note that Democratic Party icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt took the time in 1937 to fly over the devastated Ohio River valley during its unprecedented flooding, in an era when such excursions were much more logistically difficult. According to the liner notes for “The Thousand Year Flood,” he also “dispatched thousands of relief workers.” Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters, when asked if there were “any plans for the President to take a closer look at the impact of the flooding,” that he didn’t “have any scheduling updates.”

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.