Paul Rahe again.

Professor Paul Rahe is a favorite big picture thinker of the Powerline blog.  His analysis of Obama's first year in office is here, and it is devastating.  While sympathetic to his argument that McCain was a horrible candidate, I can't agree that he may have even been worse than Obama has turned out to be.  It seems inconceivable that McCain would have mounted a full-court press to take over 1/6th of the US economy, nor would he have effectively nationalized the auto industry to help out the UAW, nor would he have politicized the banking industry in the manner of Obama's administration.  While McCain was a weak candidate from the conservative's point of view, we would likely be much further along in terms of recovery from the foolishness that led to the financial meltdown in 2008.

Debt

Pat Buchanan represents the old "America First" political faction that favors America's retreat from globalism to the concept of "Fortress America".  Most thinking Americans today no longer believe it's possible for the US to withdraw from the world scene and thus Buchanan's philosophical and political coin has been devalued somewhat over the years.  Notwithstanding all this, Buchanan has produced a commentary here that definitely strikes home.  His central point: we are heading for default on our government debt and the ruination of our form of government unless we can reign in spending and begin to act responsibly as a democratic republic.  His analysis goes on to persuasively argue that this outcome is nearly impossible under a democrat administration and that we can only expect a continued pile up of debt for the next three years at least.  A very interesting read.

Why California is a failed state with dismal prospects for the future.

As one who has lived 37 years in this state with perhaps the world's best climate, it is painful to see California literally sinking under the weight of a political class run amok.  I encourage you to read this comprehensive article in Reason Magazine by Steven Greenhut who provides the clear evidence and reasons for California's demise.  It is a story of the break down of the political process, runaway unionism, oversight neglect by the media, and lack of involvement of the electorate.  In order to right the ship, California now faces the prospect of undoing what has been codified in law -- the entrenchment of an elite political class of rulers who control most of the levers of power.  This will be a daunting task and one not achieved without blood in the streets.  California is no longer the "Golden State", it is the "Corrupt State", the reason it is losing businesses and wealthy citizens at an alarming rate.  IMO the trigger event leading to this outcome was President Kennedy's Executive Order in 1963 which legalized the unionization of federal Civil Service employees.  California followed this precedent passing a similar law in the late '60's for state employees, a law providing the impetus for the accretion of power into the hands of public service unions.  These unions, and the votes they control, are easily the most powerful political force at work in state today.  They are the reason the income of public service employees now almost doubles that of private sector employees, and why taxes on private sector employees must continue to rise in the future.  Goodby California.

ADDED:  5/20/10.  A reason to think there may be hope for California after all is articulated in this City Journal article here.

Why the MSM is failing.

This post from Tom McGuire, a sensible and regular blogger on current events, goes a long way to answering the question why the the MSM is failing:

Faux Disclosure At The Times

Jonathon Gruber, a prominent and well-respected health care economist, isso well respected that he was hired by Health and Human Services to crunch numbers for the same health plans he is routinely lauding in the press.  Is that a conflict of interest?  Well, let's think of it as a an overlap of interest - he was hired because he was already symparico to the Administration and has remained so throughout.  The money may bot have changed his views or analysis bit it certainly ought to have been disclosed.

And now that this has become public we know the NY Times will leap to correct its own reporting!  No peeking - do you think the Times will (a) stonewall this; (b) run a cryptic correction correcting nothing; (c) regale us with another Public Editor apologia; or (d) note the many times they have quoted Gruber and assure us that They Will Do Beter Next Time (if the Administration is Republican).

OK, I peeked - the winner is (b); the Times opted for faux disclosure over full disclosure:

Editors’ Note

On July 12, the Op-Ed page published an article by Jonathan Gruber, a professor of economics at M.I.T., on health insurance and taxation. On Friday, Professor Gruber confirmed reports that he is a paid consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services, and that his contract was in effect when he published his article. The article did not disclose this relationship to readers.

Like other writers for the Op-Ed page, Professor Gruber signed a contract that obligated him to tell editors of such a relationship. Had editors been aware of Professor Gruber’s government ties, the Op-Ed page would have insisted on disclosure or not published his article.

Well, that almost covers it, although the Times is strangely coy about the $297,600 in question - is that too much money to mention, or not enough? (and here is a link to the op-ed.)  The Times also cites Gruber supporting an Adminstration position in a story published today which makes no mention of his large financial tie to the Administration.  Are they kidding?  Here we go:

Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technologyeconomist, predicted the excise tax [aka the "cadillac tax"] would raise workers’ wages from 2010 to 2019. “There are many academic studies showing that when health costs rise, wages fall,” he said. “In the mid- and late 1990s, when we got health costs under control, wages rose nicely.” But he added that other factors could have also lifted wages during that period.

Evidently the left hand doesn't know what the far left hand is doing.

Perhaps a subsequent Editor's Note can clarify whether the Times is still comfortable with the way they cited Prof. Gruber one, two, three editorials.  These snippets would be far less impressive if Gruber were identified as on the government payroll.  I have added a hypothetical correction:

An analysis by Jonathan Gruber, a respected health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [who has received nearly $300,000 from the Administration to evaluate its health care plans] , using data generated by the Congressional Budget Office, demonstrates that even in its current form the Finance Committee’s bill would actually save individuals and families who currently buy their own policies hundreds if not thousands of dollars in annual premiums.

Or

...Jonathan Gruber, a prominent health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [who has received nearly $300,000 from the Administration to evaluate its health care plans], believes that all of the pending bills in Congress would make health insurance affordable to the vast majority of Americans and that none of the bills would require anyone to buy insurance they could not afford.

Or

An analysis by Jonathan Gruber, a respected health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [who has received nearly $300,000 from the Administration to evaluate its health care plans], concluded that those small businesses that are not exempt would see little impact on employment or profits, although employers would reduce wages to compensate for providing added benefits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the chief arbiter of the impact of legislation, has come to similar conclusions.

After the Times editors have re-thought their editorials they might tun to the reporting of David Leonhardt, who quoted Gruber in one, two, three, fourstories in support of the reform effort.  More snippets:

 - “Take the Senate on cost control and the House on affordability,” Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T. argues, “and you’ve the best possible bill.”

 - In recent days, the Finance Committee has been considering precisely such a tax, on the health benefits that Americans receive from their employers.

The fact that these benefits are not taxed, as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber notes, stems from “nothing more than an arbitrary administrative decision made 60 years ago.”

- Health reform, done right, also has enormous potential.... Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T. calls himself “a known skeptic on this stuff” before adding, “I can’t think of a thing to try that they didn’t try.”

 - People with Cadillac plans are no healthier than people with Chevy Malibu plans. (Similarly, Americans are no healthier than citizens of rich countries that spend far less on medical care.) “Taking someone who’s uninsured and giving them insurance unambiguously improves their health,” says Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at M.I.T., “but taking someone who’s well-insured and making them really well-insured doesn’t make them any healthier.”

The Times loves to pretend that they have mastered every details, and regular readers take delight in the absurd "who cares" corrections exemplified by today's offering:

An article on Friday about changes in the late-night schedule at NBC misstated part of the name of the show on CBS that competes with “The Tonight Show” on NBC. It is “Late Show With David Letterman,” not “Late Night With David Letterman.” (That was the name of his show on NBC.)

So it's "Late Show", not "Late Night".  Meanwhile Prof. Gruber, well compensated by the Administration, continues to prop up the Administration positions with no disclosure by the Times.

Here we have a case of the NYT covering the biggest issue of the day, healthcare, and quoting liberally a prestigious MIT professor of economics.  It turns out that the professor has been a paid consultant to the government (with our tax dollars), and a well paid one at that ($300,000, so far) and that surprisingly he thinks the administration healthcare proposals are just peachy.  Unfortunately for the remaining readers of the NYTimes, they do not know the professor is being paid by the administration for his opinion.  A couple of questions come to mind:  Why wouldn't the NYT make the professor's consultancy status known to its readers?  and two, Would it make any difference to those readers if they did make it known or are they (readers) too far gone to understand or care?  Just asking.