1. ‘Give Greece What It Deserves: Communism‘, Bill Frezza, Forbes

No real need to provide an introduction to this bitingly fun take down of modern Greece. Just read it!:

What the world needs, lest we forget, is a contemporary example of Communism in action. What better candidate than Greece? They’ve been pining for it for years, exhibiting a level of anti-capitalist vitriol unmatched in any developed country. They are temperamentally attuned to it, having driven all hard working Greeks abroad in search of opportunity. They pose no military threat to their neighbors, unless you quake at the sight of soldiers marching around in white skirts. And they have all the trappings of a modern Western nation, making them an uncompromised test bed for Marxist theories. Just toss them out of the European Union, cut off the flow of free Euros, and hand them back the printing plates for their old drachmas. Then stand back for a generation and watch.

2. ‘Some Federal Workers More Likely to Die Than Lose Jobs‘, Dennis Cauchon, USA Today

A major indictment of the efficiency of our Federal government bureaucracy is found in this study done by USA Today. In the study, it was found that only .55% of federal employees were fired in the 2010 calendar year. So we tax payers are supposed to swallow that our federal bureaucracies are having a 99.45% success rate in finding effective and worthy employees? It seems that if a department wants to replace someone, they just have to wait for them to die, that’s all:

Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations.

The federal government fired 0.55% of its workers in the budget year that ended Sept. 30 — 11,668 employees in its 2.1 million workforce. Research shows that the private sector fires about 3% of workers annually for poor performance, says John Palguta, former research chief at the federal Merit Systems Protection Board, which handles federal firing disputes.

3. ‘Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery‘, John Merline, Investor’s Business Daily

An informative interview with a man who built a small business into a giant, hiring thousands of Americans along the way:

IBD: What’s the single biggest impediment to job growth today?

Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we’d tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It’s become stifling.

If you’re a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

IBD: President Obama has promised to streamline and eliminate regulations. What’s your take?

Marcus: His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that’s probably going to end up being 150,000 pages of regulations.

4. ‘Obamacare’s Raid On the Medicine Cabinet‘, John Graham, Washington Times

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week. The subject was the impact the new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will have on doctor’s reimbursement rates and whether that would lead to denied care for seniors on Medicare. She denied that there would much impact because savings would be found elsewhere in Medicare Parts C (Medicare Advantage) and D (prescription drug plans).

John Graham provides hard figures showing even if you took all the “savings” from these other programs, the Board would still be far short of reaching it’s cost-cutting mandate. All this to mean that the Board WILL have to cut physician reimbursement rates significantly because it simply has no where else to look:

Although IPAB can theoretically cut Medicare Advantage, the private program used by one-quarter of Medicare beneficiaries, Obamacare has already subjected Medicare Advantage to $145 billion in cuts this decade. This analysis suggests that IPAB will have to carry a lot more weight than expected. In 2019 alone, Medicare spending will likely be about $75 billion higher than officially estimated – or 7.5 times greater than what IPAB is called upon to save in the official estimate. For the entire decade, Medicare spending will be more than $400 billion greater than Obamacare estimates.

5. ‘The Half-Trillion Plan‘, Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post

With the debt ceiling THE issue in national politics right now and several plans floating around, Charles Krauthammer has an interesting (and in my view, most persuasive) take on the options facing Congress and the President. He calls it the Half Trillion Plan:

— The G6, proposed by the bipartisan Gang of Six senators, reduces 10-year debt by roughly $4 trillion. It has some advantages, even larger flaws.

— The Half-Trillion raises the debt ceiling by that amount in return for an equal amount of spending cuts. At the current obscene rate of deficit spending — about $100 billion a month — it yields about five months’ respite before the debt ceiling is reached again.

If you have other articles you want to recommend or have an opinion on our choices, let your voice be heard in the Comments.

Why the Jobs Situation Is Worse Than It Look2. ‘Obama’s focus on visiting clean-tech companies raises questions‘ – Carol D. Leonnig, Joe Stephens and Alice Crites, Washington Post

1. ‘Why the Jobs Situation is Worse Than It Looks‘ – Mort Zuckerman, US News and World Report

Zuckerman details how our economy and job situation is worse than even an unemployment rate of 9.1% make it appear. Plain and simple, America’s job market has been faltering for three years and is not currently showing signs of significant improvement that one would expect during a recovery. Zuckerman, an Obama supporter in 2008, believes this administration’s fiscal and economic policies have failed greatly:

The Great Recession has now earned the dubious right of being compared to the Great Depression. In the face of the most stimulative fiscal and monetary policies in our history, we have experienced the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000. From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions. Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off from full-time employment.

The real job losses are greater than the estimate of 7.5 million. They are closer to 10.5 million, as 3 million people have stopped looking for work. Equally troublesome is the lower labor participation rate; some 5 million jobs have vanished from manufacturing, long America’s greatest strength. Just think: Total payrolls today amount to 131 million, but this figure is lower than it was at the beginning of the year 2000, even though our population has grown by nearly 30 million.

2. ‘Obama’s focus on visiting clean-tech companies raises questions‘ – Carol D. Leonnig, Joe Stephens and Alice Crites, Washington Post

A thorough report on some of the winners and losers of the Obama administration’s green job promotion. The stimulus package was full of giveaways to companies doing green projects and when the government gives away money or tax breaks there are inevitable winners and losers. This report details how many of the ‘winning’ companies had connections to Obama’s campaign and many of the losers did not. When one company making electric car batteries gets federal money and another one doing the same thing doesn’t it’s called crony capitalism:

There was intense competition for clean-tech stimulus dollars. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said his agency reviewed 50,000 applicants and chose 5,000, a 90 percent rejection rate.

For the winners, there was an added bonus when Obama or his Cabinet secretaries dropped by to tout progress. “You couldn’t get that kind of publicity if you devoted all your advertising budget to it,” said Brendan Doherty, an assistant professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who has studied and written about presidential travel.

Obama began his clean-tech travel in March 2009. At a number of companies the president visited, there were connections — not all of them close, to be sure — to his 2008 campaign. Over the months, Obama touted a Florida’s utility’s electric grid project (a company in an Obama fundraiser’s portfolio was doing extensive business with the project) and a Nevada company that generates emission-free power from waste heat, the warmth radiated by machines or industrial processes (an Obama fundraiser is a partner in a venture fund that has a small stake in the company).

3. ‘The McKinsey Health Insurance Survey Was Rigorous, After All‘ – Avik Roy, Forbes

FMFP recommended this article which details the methodology behind the McKinsey Health Insurance Survey which concluded that tens of millions of working Americans would be dropped from their current employer’s insurance and forced onto Obamacare rolls. Commentator S O brought to our attention that McKinsey did not release how they came to their numbers, but hopefully this will clear things up:

Because McKinsey had refused to release details of the methodology used in their work, Democrats and left-of-center writers accused the company of having something to hide. A “keyed-in source says McKinsey is unlikely to release the survey materials because ‘it would be damaging to them,’” asserted Brian Beutler in Talking Points Memo. Senator Max Baucus (D., Mont.) wrote a letter to McKinsey demanding they release the survey’s methodology, with three House committees intending to follow suit.

Well, lo and behold, McKinsey decided to release the details: the full questionnaire used in their survey, along with a 206-page report detailing the survey’s complete results. Accompanying these details was a thoughtful discussion of the survey’s methodology, one that pops the balloon of those who tried to tar McKinsey as some sort of careless, partisan outfit. Despite reporting which implied that McKinsey wanted to distance itself from its own work, the company declared, “We stand by the integrity and methodology of the survey.”

4. ‘The U.S. and E.U.: Have They Ever Been in Such Terrible Shape?‘ – Josef Joffe, The New Republic

Joffe sheds light onto how the Greek crisis is hurting both the EU, Germany and France, and the United States and that the situation is likely to get worse. Europe and the United States have been the saviors for so many facing tough or critical fiscal crisis, but as Joffe asks ‘who will save them?’:

Europe will inevitably buy time by handing over a few more slices of bail-out money to Greece, even though, one day, the country will default. With 50 cents of the euro, it will halve its debt as well as its repayments and thus buy more time. The E.U., meanwhile, still won’t have any idea where it’s going or how to handle the crisis long-term. But what else is new? Twenty-seven governments do not a “more perfect union” make. Certainly not when the natural leader, which is Germany by dint of wealth and weight, sounds such an uncertain trumpet as it has under Chancellor Merkel. Yet what, exactly, is she supposed to do when the chickens of an ill-designed monetary union have finally come home to roost? Neither she nor Sarkozy can undo the mismanagement of the PIIGS in one fell swoop.

Meanwhile, back to the United States—to its still-sinking dollar and rising unemployment. It is hard to think of a time when both the U.S. and the E.U., the two biggest players in the international economy, were in such miserable shape. We are talking about two giants with a total of 50 percent of global GDP. Who will save them?

5.’The Local Government Pension Squeeze‘ – Steve Malanga, Wall Street Journal

We all know that the US federal government and numerous state governments (Illinois, California, Wisconsin a few months ago) are facing rising fiscal crisis. Basically, these entities are spending far more than they are bringing in and they have structural issues (entitlements for the federal government, pensions for the states) that are the wolf at the door. Well, our nation’s city governments are also facing fiscal crises that are already coming to a head. You can’t have libraries, police, and no pot holes when half your budget is going toward retired city workers:

While the national media has focused on state budget face-offs between government unions and governors such as Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, municipal officials like Mr. DeStefano are engaged in their own budget warfare. Wages and benefits account for 30% of state general fund expenditures, according to data from the National Governors Association. But U.S. Census surveys show that in the typical town or school district, employee pay and benefits can consume from 70% to 80% of the budget.

Pensions are an enormous part of the problem. While pension payments now consume about 4% of state budgets, many municipalities are already spending 15% to 20% of their finances on pension costs. Earlier this year, California’s Little Hoover Commission, a government oversight agency, observed: “Barring a miraculous market advance and sustained economic expansion, no government entity—especially at the local level—will be able to absorb the blow [from rising pensions] without severe cuts to services.”

Costa Mesa, Calif. (population 110,000) made news earlier this year when it sent layoff notices to 43% of its employees. In 10 years, the city’s annual pension bill increased to $15 million from $5 million and now consumes 16% of the city’s $93 million budget. In nearby Anaheim, pensions already account for 22% of its $252 million budget. San Jose’s pension costs for police and firefighters have quadrupled in a past decade. Without reform, the city estimates that its yearly pension costs, $63 million in 2000, will swell to $650 million in 2015.

1. ‘Hard Times, Fewer Crimes‘, James Q. Wilson, Wall Street Journal/City Journal

Preeminent political and social scientist James Q. Wilson debunks the myth that crime is caused mainly by economic factors. So then, what causes crime to increase or decrease? Wilson has a few provocative proscriptions in this must read piece:

When the FBI announced last week that violent crime in the U.S. had
reached a 40-year low in 2010, many criminologists were perplexed. It
had been a dismal year economically, and the standard view in the
field, echoed for decades by the media, is that unemployment and poverty
are strongly linked to crime. The argument is straightforward: When
less legal work is available, more illegal “work” takes place.

The economist Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, a Nobel
laureate, gave the standard view its classic formulation in the 1960s..

Yet when the recent recession struck, that didn’t happen. As the
national unemployment rate doubled from around 5% to nearly 10%, the
property-crime rate, far from spiking, fell significantly. For 2009, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation reported an 8% drop in the nationwide
robbery rate and a 17% reduction in the auto-theft rate from the
previous year. Big-city reports show the same thing. Between 2008 and
2010, New York City experienced a 4% decline in the robbery rate and a
10% fall in the burglary rate. Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles witnessed
similar declines.

2. ‘Give Me That Old Gray Religion – If the New York Times says it, is it the “absolute truth”?‘ – James Taranto, Wall Street Journal

Taranto does here what he does best: offer a scathing critique of poor and dishonest journalism, this time with the New York Times as his target:

It may be the most revealing quote ever published in the New York Times. It appears in a story about the New York Times, and its source is a top editor of the New York Times: Jill Abramson, who will become the top editor of the New York Times in September, when Bill Keller steps down, the New York Times reports:

Ms. Abramson said that as a born-and-raised New Yorker, she considered being named editor of The Times to be like “ascending to Valhalla.”

“In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion,” she said. “If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.”

The Times has of late acted a great deal like a corrupt religious institution. This column has chronicled its often vicious and dishonest attempts–both on the editorial page and in the news sections, which Abramson will head–to shore up its own authority by trying to tear down its competitors. Examples:

3. ‘Ike, D-Day and the Age of Accountable Leaders‘, Mark Salter, Real Clear Politics

On twitter (@gtpowerpolitics), I often finish my tweets with #whereareourleaders? after I post a link to an article about our sky rocketing debt and seeming inability to tackle major problems. It is in this light that I read this moving piece describing the quietly strong leadership of Dwight Eisenhower during the D-Day invasion of France in 1944:

The heavy burdens of his command were plainly evident in his behavior. Eisenhower drank 15 to 20 cups of coffee and smoked four packs of cigarettes a day. He had high blood pressure and migraines. He suffered from insomnia, so he often worked through the night.

Ike had a bad temper, but he never complained or gave the slightest impression he thought he deserved anyone’s sympathy. He disliked flattery and had no use for the perquisites of high command. He had been given a mansion as his quarters, and rejected it for a modest two-bedroom house in a London suburb. Only to his wife did he write of his loneliness and doubts. “No man can always be right,” he told her. “So the struggle is to do one’s best.”

His statement to his troops was broadcast at every embarkation point, ending confidently with an assurance of success:

“I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.”

In his shirt pocket, he carried another statement. He had written it alone, and informed no one of its contents:

“Our landings . . . have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air, and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

4. ‘Accusation That Voter ID Is Racist Demeans Blacks‘, Mark Prager, Real Clear Politics

In what George W. Bush called the ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’ there are many people out there, mostly on the Left, that view such policies as showing a photo ID at a polling both, racist toward African Americans. Prager takes those who promote this idea to task for either wallowing in ‘white guilt’ or for using it strictly for political opportunism:

Democrats and others on the left virtually unanimously condemned all Republican attempts in state legislatures to pass legislation requiring voters to show a photo ID. The Democrats labeled it a means of “disenfranchising” blacks. Many Democrats compared it to Jim Crow laws.

“Jim Crow, move over — the Wisconsin Republicans have taken your place,” charged Wisconsin Democratic State Sen. Bob Jauch, referring to his state’s new voter ID law.

It is hard to imagine a more demeaning statement about black America than labeling demands that all voters show a photo ID anti-black.

This is easily demonstrated. Imagine if some Democratic politician had announced that demanding a photo ID at the voting booth was an attempt to keep Jewish Americans from voting. No one would understand what the person was talking about. But why not? Jews vote almost as lopsidedly Democrat as do blacks. So why weren’t Jews included in liberal objections to voter ID laws?

5. ‘No, You Can’t Keep Your Health Insurance‘, Grace-Marie Turner, Wall Street Journal

Despite one President Obama’s major promises during the health care debate, that if you like your plan you can keep, a recent report the highly reputable McKinsey & Company shows a different story:

ObamaCare will lead to a dramatic decline in employer-provided health insurance—with as many as 78 million Americans forced to find other sources of coverage.

This disturbing finding is based on my calculations from a survey by McKinsey & Company. The survey, published this week in the McKinsey Quarterly, found that up to 50% of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to their current health-insurance plan in the years after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act takes effect in 2014. An estimated 156 million non-elderly Americans get their coverage at work, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

Before the health law passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only nine million to 10 million people, or about 7% of employees who currently get health insurance at work, would switch to government-subsidized insurance. But the McKinsey survey of 1,300 employers across industries, geographies and employer sizes found “that reform will provoke a much greater response” and concludes that the health overhaul law will lead to a “radical restructuring” of job-based health coverage.

The mainstream media have finally started to catch on the President Obama may bear some responsibility for the sad present state of the United States economy. With the unemployment rate spiking back up to 9.1% after another disappointing jobs report and the 2012 election season kicking off, we have seen news or blog article titles like these below (H/T James Taranto, WSJ):

• “Obama’s Toughest Re-Election Challenge May Come From Economy”–headline, Bloomberg, June 4
• “Economy Will Force Shift in Barack Obama’s 2012 Strategy”–headline, Politico.com, June 4
• “What Can Barack Obama Do to Fix the Economy? Not Much”–headline, Politico.com, June 3
• “Bad economic numbers and a justified perception that Obama’s leadership is precipitating a decline of America’s fortunes may doom his chances of reelection. But they also may not.”–Jonathan Tobin, Commentary website, June 5

The US economy and American worker have an unparalleled track record of resiliency and I’m still confident that we will get out of this rut eventually, but as of right now, the numbers, trends, and personal outlook (that is how individual Americans view the economy and America’s future) are dismal. It’s hard to believe that the country would probably be thankful for an unemployment rate in 7%, but we are hundreds of thousands of jobs away from that right now. Americans are more pessimistic than ever it seems and this feeling is palpable in daily transactions. According to a Pew Charitable Trusts poll, 55% of Americans still rate the national economy as poor, with only 47% believing their kids will have a higher standard of living than they enjoy, down from 62% in 2009. I used the term rut above and it definitely seems apt.

Jay Cost details in a short paragraph some of the other economic factors that are dragging us down:

Have you noticed that the economy is slowing down once again? The data of late has been pretty unequivocal on that front. In the last few weeks, we’ve seen monthly reports from Fed regional banks that show local economic growth stalling. Industrial production for April was flat. The housing market is in a double dip, despite the fact that mortgage rates are at bargain basement levels. Weekly jobless claims have bounced back up. And while the top-line number of April’s unemployment report showed somewhat good news, though it also revealed clear signs that wages are not keeping pace with inflation, which is bad news, considering how dependent the economy of today is on consumer spending. Looking ahead, the major firms are already starting to cut their growth forecasts for Q2. Japan’s economy slowed more than expected last quarter, and the sovereign debt crisis of Europe is back with a vengeance. Belarus just devalued its currency, Greece remains in very real danger, and China’s now thinking of bailing out Portugal.

Cost sees a ‘Bad Moon Rising’ and who can blame him. Speaking of blame: How much should be laid at the Obama administration’s feet for our current economic malaise? This is an important question and will go along why in determining who will be America’s president in 2013. It is true that presidents are in many ways stuck with an economy, good or bad, that is largely out of their control. Barack Obama himself can largely thank the fiscal crisis of 2008 for the position he currently holds. Senator Obama absolutely went to town bashing Bush/McCain’s handling of the economy and fiscal crisis, riding this into the White House. The problem now is Obama’s now been in charge for three years with an economy that is not only still in the diaper bin, but doesn’t appear to coming up for air anytime soon.

Though it is true that macroeconomic sides of the US economy are mostly out of the executive branch’s hands, they still play can play a major role. For instance, President Obama said it was an absolute necessity for the federal government to pass and implement a massive stimulus plan to get the economy growing and people back to work. Here is the President in 2009:

“I hope that we can continue to strengthen this plan before it gets to my desk. But what we can’t do is drag our feet or allow the same partisan differences to get in our way. We must move swiftly and boldly to put Americans back to work, and that is exactly what this plan begins to do.”

Well, not exactly. The administration also released a chart showing how the Stimulus package (totally nearly $800 million dollars) would lower the unemployment rate. Here is that chart with something extra added on; the actual employment rate (H/T Cato Institute’s Daniel J. Mitchell):

There is no doubt that the Obama administration’s single greatest attempt to revive the economy was a huge failure. We’ve all heard the counterfactual’s (‘unemployment would be 12-13% without the Stimulus’), but we have the administration’s own statistics to judge it by. The administration needs to be held accountable for its policies and their outcomes. According to just released poll by Washington Post-ABC, they are starting to be:

Overall, about six in 10 of those surveyed give Obama negative marks on the economy and the deficit. Significantly, nearly half strongly disapprove of his performance in these two crucial areas. Nearly two-thirds of political independents disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, including — for the first time — a slim majority who do so strongly.

Ouch.

One more point: I came across this statement from President Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney on twitter:

“There is no issue that matters more to this president than the economic health of this country.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Carney, and more importantly for President Obama, is that I and most Americans have memories. Reading this quote, I immediately recalled another key legislative ‘victory’ for the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Before the Stimulus bill even had time to cool, let alone be implemented, Obama and the Democrats spent the next year attempting to pass one of the most controversial, ideological, and most importantly, economic damaging bills in American history. It was like they said; ‘Stimulus done, economy okay now, onto our liberal dream of government run health care’.

History now tells a different story: ‘Economy not okay, health reform still very unpopular, 2012 election up in the air’.

The accepted post-election narrative in NY-26 is that the Republicans overreached on Ryan’s Medicare reform plan and the voters socked it to them. Make no mistake, this is the Democrats’ narrative that the media was anxious to adopt. However, there appear to be some inconsistencies with this story.

First, why did the newly-elected Democrat Kathy Hochul denounce support for Obama’s health law? If this was such a victory for the Democrats’ protection of Medicare and their new health law, why would the Democratic candidate not only steer clear of it but even voice her disapproval?

Second, the Tea Party candidate was a wealthy, liberal Democrat that for all intents and purposes seemed to be an impostor trying to co-opt and sully the Tea Party brand. This might be a successful strategy for Democrats going into 2012 but it doesn’t say much about the Ryan Medicare plan.

Third, a steady rule in politics is once you own something, you better defend it. This holds true even more so if it is a bold reform plan – taxes, immigration, entitlements, for example. George Bush got clobbered for his attempts to create private accounts for Social Security when he was unable to rally Republican support. This occurred despite the fact that it was solidly a Republican idea. His failure to rally, and Republicans’ failure to engage in the debate, left the party open to attack on the issue without a real defense of their position. Similarly, John McCain did not invest enough time and energy learning his health care plan in 2008 and got beat up at every turn because of it. This was not because it was a bad plan. In fact, it was a very good one. But it took explanation and impassioned defense. The Republican candidate needed to more forcefully own and defend the Medicare reform plan in NY 26, not present a mealy-mouthed defense for what her party is trying to do.

This is the future Republicans face in 2012 if they do not choose to embrace their own ideas. They don’t have to applaud every detail and say it’s perfect but right now the Ryan plan is the only game in town. And it’s pretty good compared to what the other side has, which basically lets Medicare become either insolvent or vastly rations care.

Democrats have 756 days without presenting a single budget proposal. Moreover, to the extent the Democrats have a plan to save Medicare, it can be found in “Obamacare” and its rationing board made up of 15 bureaucrats (IPAB). It is the ultimate fatal conceit to think that 15 health care professionals are going to be able to effectively and humanely make health care decisions for all of America’s seniors. But this is the current law! So why aren’t Republicans out there making sure America knows that until another alternative plan is presented, this treatment denial board, IPAB, is set to make their health care decisions for them in a few short years? We can be sure America has no clue of this board’s existence right now, nor that this is the new “status quo.”

So to recap, yes, yesterday’s election had a lot to do with Medicare and its need for reform. But the lesson is not that Republicans need to run from Paul Ryan. Rather, they need to put their running shoes on and JOIN Ryan as he defends his plan to save Medicare. Republicans will abandon him at their peril. Or to quote Ben Franklin, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

1. ‘California Prison Academy: Better Than a Harvard Degree‘, Allysia Finley, Wall Street Journal

This excellent article is number one are on our list for a reason. It clearly lays out just how out of whack California’s public prison system has become with disastrous effects on the state’s budget and other priorities, such as libraries, highways, and lower taxes.

Roughly 2,000 students have to decide by Sunday whether to accept a spot at Harvard. Here’s some advice: Forget Harvard. If you want to earn big bucks and retire young, you’re better off becoming a California prison guard.

The job might not sound glamorous, but a brochure from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations boasts that it “has been called ‘the greatest entry-level job in California’—and for good reason. Our officers earn a great salary, and a retirement package you just can’t find in private industry. We even pay you to attend our academy.” That’s right—instead of paying more than $200,000 to attend Harvard, you could earn $3,050 a month at cadet academy.

It gets better.

Training only takes four months, and upon graduating you can look forward to a job with great health, dental and vision benefits and a starting base salary between $45,288 and $65,364. By comparison, Harvard grads can expect to earn $49,897 fresh out of college and $124,759 after 20 years.

2. ‘Has the Media Totally Forgotten About the Unemployed?‘, Derek Thompson, The Atlantic

Is 9% unemployment the new normal? I sure hope not. Thompson’s article highlights this growing feeling in our country and features numerous charts that portray how poor our nation’s current job market has become.

Articles mentioning unemployment have plummeted nearly 70 percent since last summer, while articles mentioning the deficit have doubled over the same time, according to a National Journal report…

Unemployment duration ain’t what it used to be. In 1982, the last time unemployment tipped double digits, joblessness was more of a short-term affair. Across these four categories, the plurality of folks were unemployed for fewer than five weeks. In 2011, by contrast, about half the jobless have been out of work for at least 27 weeks. Just as striking, the number of people unemployed for less than five weeks remained under its historical average even during the worst months of the recession. In 1982, unemployment was a terrible cold, measured in weeks and maybe months. Today it’s pneumonia .

3. ‘Nearly 20 percent of new Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district‘, Matthew Boyle, The Daily Caller

This is the article that broke the Pelosi-waiver story (Pelosi-gate??). Exemplifies some of the extreme corruption, hypocrisy, and devastating policy impact of Obamacare.

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

4. ‘Why Not Honesty?‘, Greg Scoblete, Real Clear World: The Compass

Scoblete is a realist’s realist when it comes to American foreign policy and in dissecting President Obama’s Middle East speech, and a conservative reaction to it, he finds many central questions that are being ignored:

Here’s my question: why even “endorse the vision” that our interests and values align in the Middle East? Why not treat the American people – and, indeed, the world – like adults and try to explain the basis for U.S. policies in the region? The president made a passing attempt at framing U.S. strategic interests in the region – terrorism, oil, Israel – in the beginning of the speech, only to drown it out in a lot of Wilsonian sanctimony. But a speech discussing the convergence of American values and interests in the Middle East that did not have a single word – not one – about Saudi Arabia, and only passing mention of the Gulf states, is self-evidently dishonest.

American “values” are clearly, and frequently, subordinate to strategic interests in the Middle East. No one can seriously deny this – nor is it something to necessarily be ashamed of! Rather than trying to dress this up in a lot of flim-flam, why not tackle it head-on? Why not explain to the U.S. and the world that in some places the U.S. cannot simply support “democracy” when it does not know what will spring forth from that democracy or that the U.S. has much more urgent needs to attend to – such as protecting Israel and ensuring the stability of the Saudi monarchy?

5. ‘Obama’s $250,000 Question’, William McGurn, Wall Street Journal

When the budget you lay out has government spending growing at such a high rate, as the Obama administration’s budget for the next 10 years has, there is only a matter of time before taxes are raised, not just on the ‘rich’, but on the rest of us:

In the New Republic, the Brookings Institution’s William Galston zeroes in on the fuzzy math. “Unless Obama is prepared to tolerate huge deficits indefinitely,” he writes, “or to emulate arch-conservatives and curb the budget deficit with spending cuts only, he will have to break his unsustainable tax pledge at some point. The only question is when.”

More remarkable still, Mr. Galston was jumping off from an article in National Review by Reihan Salam, who made the same point about the mathematical impossibilities of Mr. Obama’s present tax pledge. Mr. Salam, a policy adviser at the pro-market think tank Economics 21, observes that the revenues Mr. Obama needs to pay for his agenda fall in the rung just below the super-rich—that is, Americans earning between $100,000 and $200,000

Bring your comments and own recommendations to us in the comments.

The Medicare Trustees report was released last Friday and it wasn’t good news for the program’s future. It showed Medicare – already running on IOUs from the Treasury Department, which increases the deficit daily – will be insolvent 5 years earlier than expected (2024 rather than 2029). This is the second sharpest annual decline in Medicare’s solvency ever. So much for the idea that Medicare isn’t in trouble (a major talking point of opponents of the Ryan plan) or that Obama’s health law is somehow going to place it on a sustainable path. The program’s cash flow deficit of $32 billion is the worst its ever been both in terms of absolute dollars and percentage of taxable payroll. Simply put, Medicare is in serious trouble.

Now this is nothing new but it is important for Americans following the entitlement discussion in Washington to realize the reality of the program’s future under current law.

Another point worth noting is the Trustees’ affirmation of their finding last year that under the new Obama health law millions of Americans will not be able to keep their current plan. Yes, Mr. President, this means your promise heard over and over during the health care debate has once again been proven egregiously inaccurate. For Obama supporters, this may be difficult to hear but stick with me because it’s true.

The Trustees report discusses the new law’s impact on Medicare Advantage plans. Prior to the Obama health law, employers received a tax credit for providing retiree drug plans. Thanks to the law, however, employers will face a major tax increase if they maintain coverage and will overwhelmingly make the rational decision to drop coverage once the provision kicks in. The Trustees report projects the 6.8 million enrollees in these drug plans will drop to 800,000 by 2016. I’ll do the math for you – that’s a 90% drop in coverage!

Alas, the political consultants realize the importance of the senior voting bloc and have acted to blunt the impact until after the 2012 election. The Administration has granted waivers to some employers offering these plans and has increased payments to insurers offering Medicare Advantage plans to delay projected rate increases. Voila, seniors won’t realize the consequences of the Obama health law until after the president is safely in office for another four years. Of course, this means after the election when rate increases do kick in and employers do face this tax increase, the cliff will be an even steeper one for seniors to fall from. 

At that point Mr. Obama can confidently turn over the cost-control duties to IPAB – Independent Payment Advisory Board – the rationing board of 15 unelected bureaucrats created in last year’s health care overhaul. (Keep in mind this is the Democrats’ alternative to the Ryan plan. This board will make all the hard decisions about whose care to cut and which procedures to deny without ever having to take a politically sensitive vote or seek public approval. And if they screw up, don’t call your attorney just yet because they have been granted legal immunity from your claims. So unlike an insurance company that denies care, you not only cannot change providers, you also have no legal recourse against their errors.)

Generally ignored by the mainstream media, the Trustees yet again show the Obama health law to be disastrous for seniors and the future of Medicare. It also backs up what Cong. Ryan has been saying for some time – Medicare is on an unsustainable path and it’s time to get serious about how to fix it.

Let’s dig in, shall we!

1. ‘Obama’s Immigration Reform Vision: Clouded by Cynicism‘, Mark Salter, Real Clear Politics

President Obama decries ‘politics’, regarding our nation’s immigration policy debate, in a purely political speech without any substance or chance of leading to actual reform:

Obama has never been serious about passing immigration reform. But he has been very adroit at using the unresolved issue to advance his own political interests.

In 2005, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John McCain sponsored comprehensive legislation that would have made substantial improvements to border security, establish a guest-worker program, and give the 12 to 20 million immigrants now living here illegally a path to citizenship….

A bipartisan group of senators supporting the bill formed an informal caucus to help guide it successfully through Senate debate. They met every morning in a room just off the Senate chamber to discuss plans for defending the bill from amendments that would reduce its chances of passage. Then-Sen. Barack Obama asked to join in those discussions.

As an aide to McCain, I was in the room for every one of those meetings. It was my first opportunity to observe Obama closely. During those meetings, I never saw him engage in any discussion concerned with building a majority vote in favor of the legislation. In the meetings he attended, he would draw from his shirt pocket a 3×5 index card, on which he had written changes he insisted be made to the bill before he would support it. They were invariably the same demands made by the AFL-CIO, which was intent on watering down or killing the guest-worker provisions. Republicans and Democrats alike were irritated by his transparently self-interested behavior, but tried to negotiate with him. He remained adamant in his positions and unwilling to compromise.

2. ‘Syria: The Class Clash‘, Walter Raubeson, Foreign Policy Association

A colleague of mine who spent the last two years in Damascus has been covering the uprisings in Syria since they started. This particular piece discusses the role of classes in the current insurrection.

The ongoing coverage of the Syrian uprising has focused, mostly, on issues of sect, ethnicity, and political affiliation. “This is a sectarian issue! Sunnis vs Alawites vs Christians!!!” Or maybe…”It’s about Kurds vs Arabs!!!” Another favorite is…”It’s about Authoritarianism vs Islamism vs Liberalism!!!” Newspapermen seem to like fights.

The one issue that seems to be getting thrown under the bus, and what might just be most important in the Syrian context, is the issue of class.

3. ‘Mitt Romney: Obama’s Running Mate‘, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board rips into Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care program, delivering what could be a devastating strike to his presidential aspirations:

“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….

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….

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.”

4. ‘Obama owes thanks, and an apology, to CIA interrogators‘, Marc Thiessmen, Washington Post

Just today, Attorney General Eric Holder said that he has “made a lot of progress” on the investigation of former CIA interrogators. Remember, all of these CIA officers have already undergone a federal investigation in which they cleanly passed.

On his second day in office, Obama shut down the CIA’s high-value interrogation program. His Justice Department then reopened criminal investigations into the conduct of CIA interrogators — inquiries that had been closed years before by career prosecutors who concluded that there were no crimes to prosecute. In a speech at the National Archives, Obama eviscerated the men and women of the CIA, accusing them of “torture” and declaring that their work “did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts — they undermined them.” Now, it turns out that the very CIA interrogators whose lives Obama turned upside down played a critical role in what the president rightly calls “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.”

It is time for a public apology.

5. ‘History Lessons for Obama and Other Liberals‘, George will, Washington Post

Will brings some welcome historical perspective to the entitlement program debate, among other topics.

Responding to Ryan’s budget proposal, Obama said it “would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known certainly in my lifetime. In fact, I think it would be fundamentally different than what we’ve known throughout our history.”

Well. It is unclear what “fundamentally” means to Obama, but consider some possible metrics of what is, and is not, different than what we have known “throughout our history.” Ryan’s plan would reduce federal spending as a percentage of GDP from the 2009-11 average of 24.4 to 19.9 in 10 years. It was not until the nation was 158 years old — in the Depression year of 1934, with the New Deal erupting — that peacetime federal spending topped 10 percent of GDP, and it did not reach 12 percent until the war preparations of 1941.

Ryan’s plan would alter Medicare. But Medicare has existed in its current configuration for only 46 of the nation’s 235 years.

The hysteria and hyperbole about Ryan’s plan arise, in part, from a poverty of today’s liberal imagination, an inability to think beyond the straight-line continuation of programs from the second and third quarters of the last century. It is odd that “progressives,” as liberals now wish to be called, have such a constricted notion of the possibilities of progress.

Liberals think Medicare and Social Security as they exist are “fundamental” to the nation’s identity. But liberals think the Constitution — which the Framers meant to be fundamental, meaning constituting, law — should be construed as a “living” document, continually evolving to take different meanings under whatever liberals consider new social imperatives.

Please feel free to offer your own recommendations or thoughts on ours in the comments.

The first round of Circuit Court hearings on the Obama health law took place earlier today in Richmond, Virginia’s Fourth Circuit. Two cases were heard by the three judge panel (Liberty University appealing a ruling for the government and the Justice Department appealing a ruling for the State of Virginia). It’s worth noting that while the 4th Circuit is composed of 14 judges – 7 appointed by Democratic presidents and 7 appointed by Republican presidents – the 3-judge panel for today’s oral arguments were all Democratic appointees (2 were appointed by President Obama, the major beneficiary of this law being upheld). That being the case, it is widely figured that it was over before it began.

After listening to both sides arguments (as I did), a neutral observer could certainly hear the difference in the panel’s tone and questions toward the two counsels. As some individuals in the audience have described, the audio sounds more like the judges were looking to the government-appellee to help write their opinions while looking to attack the plantiff-appellant at every turn.

While the basics of the case are quite clear – the Commerce Clause requires at least some form of activity, even if the act has an insignificant effect on interstate commerce – never discount lawyers’ ability to play verbal gymnastics with a relatively simple term (e.g., remember Bill Clinton’s famous statement questioning the definition of “is”?) Here’s one example from today:

During appellant’s argument (Liberty), the panel focused on the question of what qualifies as an activity. They used as an example someone receiving a gift (let’s say it’s marijuana) from their neighbor. The neighbor, now in possession of marijuana, is now subject to Congressional regulation under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which stems from the Commerce Clause power. The neighbor did nothing to seek out, buy or acquire this gift but they are still subject to regulation.

So how is this different than those who do not seek out health insurance? I mean, Congress has the right to regulate marijuana just as much as the health care market. If your neighbor gives you marijuana and you accept it, you become subject to the CSA. The act is one of accepting the gift. Same as if someone offered to pay for your health insurance. If you accepted the gift, you would now be subject to Congressional regulation as it pertains to your health insurance.

Clearly, the difference with the individual mandate is that no neighbor has come over to give you anything. You are just sitting in your house all alone when the government knocks on your door and mandates that you buy a product. It’s reasoning? Because you chose not to accept the gift from your neighbor (whether it be marijuana or health insurance), you made an economic decision and consequently participated in economic activity. Voila, you are now involved in commercial decisions even when you’re sitting at home not buying anything. Don’t tell me this passes the laugh test.

The second point worth noting from today’s argument pertains to the necessary and proper clause. The government asserts that since:

A) Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the insurance market by prohibiting lifetime limits or denying consumers with pre-existing conditions, and

B) To make these reforms work, everybody must participate in the system

then,

C) They can exercise powers that would otherwise not be constitutional – force people to buy a product from a private company.

To paraphrase the government’s lawyer, “the Necessary and Proper clause allows Congress to fill in the gaps of a comprehensive scheme.” Essentially, the Justice Department has yet another quite expansive claim – that the Necessary and Proper clause is an additional power unto itself that can expand the other powers. Yet this has never been the interpretation of it. It has always been seen as a provision ensuring laws with a constitutional basis can be implemented. It is a logistical provision – if you can raise an army, you can obviously raise and expend the money to pay that army.

The government’s approach goes way beyond modern precedent. If allowed, this would mean Congress could pass any unconstitutional law it wanted (e.g., individual mandate), so long as it was “necessary” to make a constitutional law workable (prohibition on pre-existing conditions)!

Moreover, this line of reasoning completely ignores the second half of the analysis – Is it proper? Well-established precedent says it’s not “proper” if it violates the founding principles, one of which is a government of limited and enumerated powers. This hits on the first part of our discussion – where is the limiting principle if Congress can regulate any “mental decision” or decision to not participate in an activity because it has economic implications? This would be granting Congress a de facto “police power,” something the Founders intentionally avoided doing.

No one is expecting the Fourth Circuit to rule against the government (and they’ll probably get a 3-0 ruling). But that doesn’t mean all Americans shouldn’t be outraged and terrified by the implications of the government’s position. We can only hope that the 11^th Circuit, which will review Judge Vinson’s ruling striking down the entire law, (and ultimately the Supreme Court) provides a panel that has an interest in what our Founders intended and what has made this country so great.