Obama Will Take Responsibility If Health Care Goes Wrong?

How exactly is President Barack Obama going to take responsibility for the problems with the health care reform package when it breaks the budget and can't be revenue neutral unless taxes are hiked long after he is out of office?

"I have no interest in having a bill get passed that fails. That doesn't work," he told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview to air Sunday night.

Heading to a rally Saturday in Minneapolis, the president used his weekly radio and Internet address to focus on government figures showing that nearly half of all Americans live without health insurance in a 10-year period. He said the situation will worsen without the changes he wants and that losing coverage can happen to anyone.

"I intend to be president for a while and once this bill passes, I own it. And if people look and say, You know what? This hasn't reduced my costs. My premiums are still going up 25 percent, insurance companies are still jerking me around.' I'm the one who's going to be held responsible. So I have every incentive to get this right," he said in an excerpt of the CBS interview released Saturday.

While the president cleared out of town, thousands of people marched along Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol to protest Obama's health care plan and what they say is out-of-control federal spending.

The President is making promises he can't keep. In fact, many of the proposals aren't even going to become effective until 2013 - after he's out of office. That includes changes to Medicaid to expand coverage. Other provisions take effect in 2011, but the physical effect and the costs will not be ascertained until after President Obama is out of office.

He'd like us to think that his statements today are a sign that he's responsible and taking responsibility for the health care proposals, but it's anything but.

Who takes responsibility for the fact that Social Security is deeply in debt?

Who takes responsibility for the fact that Medicare is in debt?

Who takes responsibility for the fact that Medicaid is in debt?

Who takes responsibility for the fact that the prescription drug plan is in the red, and it's only been in operation for a few short years?

The politicians who saw those massive programs through to passage into law are largely out of office and cannot be held accountable except by historians. Taxpayers have to pay the tab for their math mistakes and misplaced assumptions.

The CBO has already shown that the President's math doesn't add up - to the tune of billions. It would add $239 billion to the deficit over the first 10 years following enactment.

Other reports show that his plan will result in millions of people losing their existing health insurance in the transition.

This is all about the Democrats attempting to increase the percentage of Americans insured from 85-90% to 90-95%. This is a trillion dollar gamble to get an assumed 30 million people covered by health insurance (and that's using the President's inflated numbers), even though there are cheaper alternatives that will not break the federal budget.

Chief among them is portability so that anyone in the country can buy insurance plans approved by any other state, regardless of where you live. One reason that people don't buy insurance is that they don't want to pay for items they don't need, but which are mandated by states. Increasing competition will drive down prices. Improving transparency in the pricing of medical services would also improve competitive pricing and reduce costs.

Zero Tolerance Would Curb Corruption

Should it surprise anyone that New Jersey lags other states in posting financial data online that might be used to curb corruption and graft? Shocking, I know.

A bill that would create the Web portal has stalled with the Legislature currently on summer break, and its supporters would now like to see Governor Corzine take up the cause as he seeks reelection.

At an afternoon news conference inside the State House, the supporters attempted to put new pressure on Corzine — who in January called the effort "a credible way to increase accountability and transparency in our budget process."

The Web site, which would improve on the state Department of Treasury's posting of the current state budget, could be created by an executive order, said Sen. Joseph Pennacchio, R-Morris.

"We don't know why the governor is waiting," said Pennacchio, sponsor of the legislation.

Corzine's press secretary, Robert Corrales, said the governor still thinks the Web site is a good idea and hopes to have one up and running by the end of this year.

Twenty-two other states have launched some type of fiscal transparency Web site that lists comprehensive, searchable information on government spending, said Sandra Fabry, executive director of the conservative Center for Fiscal Accountability based in Washington.

"New Jersey is slowly but surely falling behind," she said.

But websites are one thing; pressure from politicians on those who are engaging in corrupt activities is quite another.


It's well past time that the culture of corruption that is pervasive at all levels of government be curtailed. I'm not naive to believe that corruption could be eliminated because someone will always try to skirt the rules, but we need to have politicians who hold themselves and their fellow politicians to a higher standard.

Instead of rigging the system like dozens of New Jersey politicians, or hoping that seniority or campaign contributions insulate themselves from ethics violations as Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel has done, or believe that adultery and the misuse of state funds are not offensive as Republican Gov. Mark Sanford believes, it's instructive to see how their fellow politicians respond.

More often than not, the politicians of the same political party look on in indifference. Democrats controlling the House have ignored the criminality of Rangel, up to and including tax evasion, all while allowing him to continue chairing the House Ways and Means Committee that sets tax policy for the nation. Sanford's fellow Republicans have called on him to resign. Gov. Jon Corzine had to call on his fellow Democrats to resign in New Jersey after they were busted, primarily because it was Chris Christie's office that indicted many of them.

It's a need to hold our politicians accountable for their actions, and that those in positions of power hold each other accountable as well. It means that Republicans have to police fellow Republicans in addition to Democrats; and that Democrats have to police fellow Democrats in addition to Republicans. It means ending the double standards that call for attacking the other political party's failures while ignoring their party's own corruption.

Corrupt politicians are a major reason why many Americans don't trust the political system. They see double standards everywhere, with one standard for politicians, and one for everyone else. The Rangel situation is particularly instructive given that any taxpayer in his position would have faced criminal charges for the massive underpayment of taxes and the failure to file accurate tax filings over a span of years, to say nothing of his violations of state rent stabilization laws and other ethical misdeeds. Yet, the IRS simply required repayment of the back taxes without penalties.

9/11: Eight Years Later

*** This post will remain on the top of the page. Scroll down for other coverage. ***

It's pretty hard to believe that eight years have passed since the deadly 9/11 attacks, in which nearly 3,000 people were murdered by 19 al Qaeda terrorists who hijacked four airliners with the intent to crash them into the Twin Towers in New York City, the Pentagon, and either the White House or Capitol Building in Washington, DC.

The vivid memories of the attacks have faded, and have instead been replaced with asinine ad campaigns for the WWF.

Local television networks are contemplating the extent of coverage of the memorial service at Ground Zero, which will include the reading of the names of all those murdered at the Twin Towers.

On the morning of the 9/11 anniversary, it's expected all the local stations will once again go wall-to-wall with coverage of the name-reading ceremony at Ground Zero.

They'll do as they have for the previous seven anniversaries, tossing out commercials and carrying the coverage until the last victim's name is read.

However, there's a growing reluctance to do so, one partly driven by money.

"This is crazy," said one station insider. "Nobody wants to be the first to pull out."

From a moral standpoint, station officials know well that airing the ceremony is the right thing to do. The ceremony is New York, and it has been an emotional event each time before.

They eventually will stop covering this, although it is only two years until the 10th anniversary of the attacks, and the nation's collective memories will fade even further. The problem is that many are still living with the effects of the attacks, particularly in the New York metro area, and Jay-Z has responded with a benefit concert (and whose tickets were promptly scalped for up to $3,000 when face tickets started at $54.50). Proceeds from ticket and concert merchandise sales will go to the New York Police and Fire Widows' and Children's Benefit Fund.

The tragic circumstances of the aftermath is continuing to take lives. Reports indicate that the number of people who have died as a result of their exposure to Ground Zero has increased. Moreover, several responders have committed suicide.

More than 800 World Trade Center rescue and recovery workers have died since 9/11 -- and cancer has killed at least 270 of those heroes, new data show.

The figures also show that 33 WTC responders committed suicide.

State researchers have tallied 817 deaths of workers and volunteers who toiled at toxic Ground Zero or the Fresh Kills landfill, where rubble was sifted.

Benny Gordon will be racing on September 11 in Virginia in a NASCAR event in a car adorned with 9/11 themed logos to raise awareness for the fundraising efforts for the National 9/11 Museum and Memorial at Ground Zero.

It is interesting to see the difference that a year of construction makes at Ground Zero. This is a photo taken of the Freedom Tower from across West Street at the Vesey Street overpass last year:

While much of the site is still below the level of the streets surrounding the 16 acres, tower cranes are erecting steel and concrete for 1WTC, the Freedom Tower, and 4WTC on the opposite corner. The memorial and museum are underway (new renderings of the memorial and museum pavilions were released September 10 and picked up by Curbed), although construction deadlines are in doubt whether they will be completed in time for the 10th anniversary of the attacks (the museum is scheduled to open in 2012 and the memorial should at least be partially open by September 11, 2011).

Here's a photo taken from nearly the same vantage point just over a week ago:

 

Meanwhile, the cornerstone that was dedicated in 2004 is back at the shop where it was originally fabricated and no one knows what will become of it. In the meantime, it will be placed in a garden at the fabrication facility in Hauppaugue.

Still, the work on the Freedom Tower is a tangible sign of progress, which stands in stark contrast to the lack of visible work on the former Deutsche Bank building and Fiterman Hall. Fiterman Hall is finally being deconstructed, and it's likely that the Deutsche Bank building will follow. Both should have been deconstructed long ago, but the City, State, and public authorities responsible for the sites failed miserably to do what had to be done.

It's only been in the last few weeks that Larry Silverstein gained control over the site for 2WTC and 3WTC, and there's no timetable for when those projects will be completed because there's some effort underway to build the towers as nothing more than stumps that will be finished when the business climate improves. I think that's a terribly shortsighted mistake, and it means that construction in and around Ground Zero will persist for decades to come.

The business climate and the financial market meltdown has meant that demand for office space has declined, but it will eventually come back, and Class A space will be in high demand at some point. In other words, top quality office space is always in demand, and at favorable rates, it will draw businesses to consider working in Lower Manhattan. Turning Ground Zero into a perpetual work zone is a guarantee that those businesses wont come, because they wont want the hassle of working in such an environment.

Yet, local politicians aren't making much of an issue of Ground Zero redevelopment during the current election season. It's not even an issue, despite the fact that we're talking about $10 billion in redevelopment ongoing in and around the site. Redevelopment has become an afterthought, and no one in government has taken it upon themselves to stand guard and make sure that development takes place. Instead, we get a muddled mess and resigned indifference.

It's hoped that the 9/11 memorial will be finished in time for the 10th anniversary, but other memorials have been completed around the region, including one on Staten Island.

 

This is a closeup of the Staten Island 9/11 Memorial, which sits across from Lower Manhattan. The defining feature of this memorial is that not only are the names and ages of those murdered in the attacks provided, but each person's silhouette was carved into their stone marker. It's a very personal touch, and a powerful one at that. Family and friends have left photos and other personal effects from time to time.

Never forget.

There are memorials all around the nation, yet none is more powerful than the absence of the Twin Towers and the tribute of light that shines from near ground Zero in a silent testimony to those murdered on 9/11.

 

UPDATE:
Others carrying remembrances and commemorating 9/11: Don Surber, Lorie Byrd, Ed Morrissey, The Anchoress, Sister Toldjah, Michelle Malkin, and more will be posted as I get a chance.

UPDATE:
Today's commemorations in New York City are taking place under gloomy conditions with heavy rain and strong winds, which is quite unlike the startling beautiful morning immediately prior to the first of two planes to crash into the WTC.

For my prior year recollections and postings, see September 11, 2008, September 11, 2007, September 11, 2006, and September 11, 2005, in which I wrote:

As I write this, the names of the WTC victims are being recited at Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan.

What is thus far the enduring memorial? The Times discusses the ad hoc memorials that sprang up around the city in the days and weeks following the attacks. However, the article itself doesn't mention who did the attacks. There is a passing reference to terrorism, but how are people supposed to remember the day if they don't remember who did this to us? It would be like remembering Pearl Harbor day on December 7 and not saying that it was Japanese fighters that launched the attack, which brought the US into World War II.

So, for the record, let me restate this day. 9/11/2001 was the day that 19 Islamic terrorists hijacked four airliners with the intent to kill tens of thousands of Americans while they were at work, play, travel, and engaging in life, crashed those planes into the Pentagon and World Trade Center's Twin Towers, and murdered more than 3,000 people. Al Qaeda, an Islamic terrorist group with ties to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and a host of other failed states, claimed responsibility.

Yet, there are still a significant portion of the US population who think that the US government was either behind the attacks, or knew of the attacks and did nothing to stop them. Just as bad is the view across the Islamic world, where many simultaneously believe that someone else besides Muslims were behind the attacks (Jews/Israel among the top choices), and cheer that al Qaeda carried out the attacks, despite all the evidence and the fact that al Qaeda has repeatedly taken credit for the heinous attacks.

UPDATE:
The New York Times looks back on the fearful times that immediately followed the 9/11 attacks, and how many people thought that life would never be the same - and that skyscrapers were too dangerous and that another attack could come at any time. Eight years later, the NYC skyline has seen several notable additions, particularly in Midtown, including the NYT headquarters. It should be remembered that President Bush did manage to prevent another mass casualty attack in the US since 9/11. We can only hope that President Obama keeps up the fight and continues that string of good fortune.

UPDATE:
Trooferism is still alive and well. It most recently bubbled to the surface in relation to Van Jones, who was tapped by President Obama to oversee the Administration's Green agenda. It was claimed that he signed a petition calling for additional investigations in to 9/11 and a government role in the attacks. Salon contacted numerous other signatories and wanted to know if they would again sign such a petition. Quite a few said they would, including Ed Asner and quite a few academics. One expressed sadness that Jones recanted, while another, Paul Hawken (cofounder of Smith and Hawken) said he wouldn't, because he never signed the original.

UPDATE:
Legalbgl, my friend and coblogger, has posted a remembrance of Hagay Shefi as he has done remembrances for others murdered on 9/11 in past years.

UPDATE:
Kudos to Bing.com and Ask.com for commemorating the anniversary of the attacks. Google (which also happens to own blogspot) and Yahoo! have no such commemoration.

UPDATE:
For an interesting look back at the events of the day, check out Mediaite.com, which has screen shots taken of major websites in the course of September 11, 2001. Also, check out Instapundit's postings through the course of the day.

From an ACORN An Ever Growing Scandal

Yesterday, Andrew Breitbart released video showing two ACORN employees in Baltimore, Maryland telling two people posing as a pimp and prostitute how to engage in child prostitution, tax evasion, and avoid criminal prosecution.



ACORN responded by claiming the report was a gross distortion of ACORN's practices, and that the two ACORN in the video were fired. Today, another secretly shot videotape has surfaced that shows the same couple getting similar advice from ACORN officers in Washington.



So, while ACORN wanted people to think that this was some kind of isolated incident, it isn't.

Andrew Breitbart released a new video from a different ACORN office, and the result is the same - ACORN employees describing how to break the law.

The newly released videotape, shot on July 25, shows ACORN staffers explaining to the pair how they can hide the woman's professed work — prostitution — and get a loan that will help them establish a brothel.

James O'Keefe, a 25-year-old independent filmmaker, posed as the pimp while visiting the ACORN office, accompanied by 20-year-old Hannah Giles, who posed as the prostitute. On a videotape provided to FOXNews.com, they are seen receiving guidance to establish the woman as the sole proprietor of a bogus company to mask the nature of her business.

"She's not going to put on (the loan application) that she's doing prostitution ... she doesn't have to," the ACORN staffer says. "You don't have to sit back and tell people what you do."

While posing as the pimp, O'Keefe was told by the ACORN employees not to make himself too visible because it might affect his political chances and should keep the prostitution ring low key.

You got that folks? ACORN was busy providing advice on how to break the law and advance politically by telling a self-declared pimp how to conduct his business in such a fashion that his political aspirations wouldn't be affected.

How dumb can some people be - namely those ACORN workers who were providing this information? Could they not tell how idiotic they look and sound?

Far from being some kind of localized problem, it appears that ACORN provides the same general guidance wherever one goes. That's a problem that starts at the top and works its way down. It includes condoning criminality, misogyny, and tax evasion.

Yet, the media largely ignores this malfeasance or chalks it up to local issues, and doesn't investigate deeper into the group's ties to none other than President Obama and others who helped get the President elected.

Supporters of ACORN claim that the GOP and conservatives engage in a witch hunt to go after ACORN, but the facts are what they are - ACORN has repeatedly been found breaking the law, and it's not some isolated thing. It's past time for law enforcement to get involved because ACORN will not clean up its act from within.

UPDATE:
At the closely affiliated Workers Families Party (WFP), there's money trouble too. The WFP was founded by a coalition of groups including ACORN. They've repeatedly missed filing deadlines in New York City:

The murky finances of the Working Families Party led its treasurer to resign last month, the Daily News has learned - while the party has missed two disclosure filings with state regulators.

Michael McGuire, a mason tenders' union official who became the party's treasurer June 22, told The News he resigned Aug. 19 - five days the after the WFP was supposed to file a mandatory report of its donations and spending.

He was replaced in the unpaid post by longtime WFP activist Dorothy Siegel, but the party also skipped another filing that was due Sept. 4 at the state Board of Elections.

"It was a clerical oversight that we've alerted the board to and we are filing both on Monday," said WFP spokesman Dan Levitan.

Of course it was a clerical oversight. That's what they all seem to say... it's tough to follow the law.

UPDATE:
Instapundit links. Thanks!

September 11, 2009: I remember Hagay Shefi

As many of you know, in 2006 I took part in Project 2,996, tribute in which bloggers remembered a victim of 9/11. In 2007, Project 2,996's founder, Dale Roe, decided for personal reasons to discontinue the project, and I decided on my own, to randomly pick a victim and remember them. A few weeks ago I was pleased to find out that Dale decided to revive Project 2,996 and I was honored to be asked to contribute another memorial. Please visit my past memorials to Donna Bernaerts-Kearns, Daniel Thomas Afflitto,and Alison Marie Wildman, as they deserve to be remembered today also. Today, I remember Hagay Shefi. Once again I ask Lawhawk to allow this post to remain under his for the rest of the day.

Hagay was born in Israel, and is the son of retired Brigadier General Dov Shefi and his wife Esther. Hagay moved to the United States in 1992, where he was appointed President and CEO of a financial company. While in Israel, Hagay rose to the rank of Captain in the Israeli Defense Force, and worked for the Ministry of Defense as a budget Officer. He was honored by the then Chief of Staff, General Ehud Barak (former Prime Minister and current Minister of Defense) as a Distinguished Officer in 1992 -- evidently the apple not falling far from his father's tree. Hagay went on to lead and develop several companies and at his death, was the CO-founder, President and CEO GoldTier Technologies. On 9/11, Hagay was delivering a speech on risk management at Windows on the World on the 106th Floor of 1 WTC.

Hagay has been described by one friend as "a family man who always gave of himself, a true father figure, and a caring husband." A business associate remembered his "smile, enthusiasm , and humor". A colleague at one of the companies he worked for remembered that "Hagay was superb at mixing humor and energy into situations, even the most difficult negotiations when he could not give even one inch...He made a huge impact on many of us, specially those of us who considered him one of our best friends."

Hagay seemed to be a dynamic personality, a strong leader, a smart businessman, a great family man, and an eternal optimist. Even putting in long hours at his companies, Hagay always made time to spend with his children. Hagay left behind his parents, Dov and Esther Shefi, his wife Sigal, two children Roy and Naomi (ages 5 and 3 at the time of his death) and two siblings, Yishai and Pazit.

Obviously, I did not know Hagay, but reading his tributes on the web, reading his father's words, I wish our paths had crossed before this tribute.

Al Qaeda Faces Recruitment Challenge; And So Do We

I can't say I'm sorry to hear that, but the Guardian reports that al Qaeda faces recruitment challenges.

Speaking to the Guardian in advance of tomorrow's eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, western counter-terrorism officials and specialists in the Muslim world said the organisation faced a crisis that was severely affecting its ability to find, inspire and train willing fighters.

Its activity is increasingly dispersed to "affiliates" or "franchises" in Yemen and North Africa, but the links of local or regional jihadi groups to the centre are tenuous; they enjoy little popular support and successes have been limited.

Lethal strikes by CIA drones – including two this week alone – have combined with the monitoring and disruption of electronic communications, suspicion and low morale to take their toll on al-Qaida's Pakistani "core", in the jargon of western intelligence agencies.

Interrogation documents seen by the Guardian show that European Muslim volunteers faced a chaotic reception, a low level of training, poor conditions and eventual disillusionment after arriving in Waziristan last year.

"Core" al-Qaida is now reduced to a senior leadership of six to eight men, including Bin Laden and his Egyptian deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, according to most informed estimates. Several other Egyptians, a Libyan and a Mauritanian occupy the other top positions. In all, there are perhaps 200 operatives who count.

The most significant recent development is evidence that al-Qaida's alliance with the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan is fraying, boosting the prospect of acquiring intelligence that will lead to Bin Laden's capture or death. Despite an intensive US-led manhunt, there has not been a credible lead on the Saudi-born al-Qaida leader in years. Bin Laden's nickname among some CIA hunters is "Elvis" because there have been so many false sightings of him.

When you consider that the terrorist group is being relentlessly hunted down in former safe havens like Pakistan and Afghanistan, it's affiliates in Iraq were decimated, and even Hamas considers al Qaeda a mortal threat to its own terror operations, you can see why al Qaeda has problems.

However, that's not quite the full story. Al Qaeda may be losing its power as a distinct entity, but its worldview and the pursuit of jihad is not going away. It's still a very powerful force in places like Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, and other failed states and regions around the world. Instead of groups directly linked to al Qaeda, there are more freelance groups and cells operating to plot attacks. Groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jamaat al-Muslimeen fill the void.

Even in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Taliban under the Mehsud clan took up al Qaeda's banner and were effectively holding off Pakistan's military in the frontier provinces. Recent airstrikes killed Baitullah Mehsud, but a relative picked up where he left off.

The problem is that when you drop the number of members in a core group below a certain point, the ability to track, let alone penetrate, the terror group to gain intel about whereabouts, plans, and coordination with operational terror cells becomes increasingly more difficult. With the core leadership down to 6-8 terrorists, finding those terrorists in the vast space of the frontier provinces of Pakistan and Afghanistan is exceedingly difficult.

It requires continued vigilance to prevent another mass casualty attack, and to consider attacks in venues that might not be suspected.

Fact Checking Corzine's Latest Commercial

Here's New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine's latest commercial, in which he touts job creation and his economic development plan:



Let's address the four major claims provided in the commercial in turn:

1) Cut spending $4 billion. He claims the current budget is $4 billion less than last year's budget, but that doesn't take into account the $2 billion in federal stimulus money to balance the budget. Without the federal aid and curtailing pension payment obligations, the state would have run a deficit. Moreover, the state budget is billions more than when Corzine first took office and the state unemployment rate has steadily crept upwards all the while. In fact, the Governor's numbers never added up.

2) Claims that new jobs were created. Based on the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, it appears that Corzine doesn't do basic math. The unemployment rate has risen from 7.3% in January 2009 to an estimated 9.3% in July (a preliminary figure). It's quite likely to be much higher than that. If the jobs are being created, they're not replacing the thousands of jobs lost over the same time.

3) Property tax relief. Corzine came into office claiming that property tax relief would be on the way. He proposed and got a sales tax increase to pay for property tax relief. His current budget slashed last year's property tax relief payments for most New Jerseyeans - particularly those making over $75,000, which isn't that much over the median income in New Jersey, meaning that most taxpayers took a big hit compared to a year before.

The reason for that? Government spending didn't slacken even as sales tax revenues from the sales tax hike didn't bring in the same revenue. The budget was thrown out of whack, and the only way to bring them into balance was to cut the program. Curbs on municipal tax hikes hasn't worked out either, given that most municipalities that seek increases above 4% annually can get waivers - there's no teeth to the cap. Moreover, Corzine told municipalities to skimp on pension obligations to avoid tax hikes, following in the state's example, which is one of the worst situations in the entire country. That's the height of irresponsibility.

Instead of pandering to taxpayers with a bait and switch on tax money, the property tax relief program and the associated sales tax hike should both have been scrapped.

4) Corzine's attack on Christie for not accepting federal stimulus funds. Corzine does this in a brutally dishonest fashion. He notes that Chris Christie would have rejected the $2 billion stimulus package, meaning there would be higher property taxes. Of course, Corzine ignores the fact that the state's budget was balanced only by including the $2 billion and shifting money into next year, but then plays down that fact when you ask where the money is in counting what the actual state budget size is (to boost the claim that he cut the size of the state budget).

Corzine continued to use one-shot budget items to balance the budget, even though he's technically prohibited from doing so. He had to raise $1 billion in taxes and fees to bring the budget into balance, and yet he's claiming he provided property tax relief? He was simply shifting around taxes and fees, increasing everything in the process. Soaking the rich isn't going to help either.

Battleship New Jersey Museum Gets Creative In Fundraising

 

The Battleship New Jersey Museum in Camden, New Jersey is suffering from the recession and has taken to finding new and creative ways to raise money. They had even gone so far as to auction off the chance to sit in the fire control chair and fire one of the 5 inch guns.

No word on the target though. Trenton is probably out of range.

Still, the winner paid $2,600 to fire the gun.

This year, the tourist attraction on the Camden waterfront is holding special events, such as the party that drew 1,800 people for the fireworks display on New Year's Eve, and the July Fourth "high-end barbecue that brought in close to six figures in profits."

It also stepped up its sleepover encampment program, now expected to bring in about 20,000 visitors this year. And it's planning new tours, including one that will allow people to load a projectile and powder bags in a turret below one of the big guns bristling from the deck.

"The new mantra is: 'If we can't create a 'wow,' we're not going to do it,'" said James Schuck, who was named the president and chief executive officer of the Battleship New Jersey Museum and Memorial over the summer.

"If it is a 'wow,' it will attract people and, once they come, the ship sells itself. You fall in love with it."

Schuck, the ship's former executive vice president and chief financial officer for four years, said he hopes to see the ship's new illumination and laser display sometime next year.

"We have a company putting together a whole plan," he said. "People get a kick out of seeing the ship come alive."

In June, Big J found another way of making money. It auctioned off the right to sit in a gunner's chair and fire a five-inch gun. The weapon was loaded with a pound and a half of gunpowder and the blast - the first from its barrel in 20 years - was impressive. So was the price for firing it: $2,600.

The battleship opened as a waterfront destination in 2001, and for several years received $3 million in annual state aid. In 2007, the funding was slashed to $2.8 million. That was followed by cuts in successive years to $1.5 million and $1.35 million.

The USS New Jersey was one the largest battleships ever built, and with her sister ships Iowa, Wisconsin, and Missouri, were the largest built by the US. The New Jersey was also one of the most decorated ships in the US Navy, having fought in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and provided support for operations in Lebanon.

UPDATE:
Photo added.

Yet Another Obama Health Policy Speech Roundup

I'm sure that everyone can stand to use just one more health policy roundup from President Obama's speech last night. There were a couple of points to take away from the speech that have been covered elsewhere. Here are the highlights, with my added analysis:

1) How come President Obama said that hundreds of millions of Americans already have insurance and he downgraded the number of people who don't have insurance from his widely touted 47 million to 30 million? Instead of 15% of the population without insurance, we're now less than 10%? What gives?

So why did Obama make the change? The first possibility is the difference between people who "don't have any health insurance" and people who "cannot get coverage." Millions of Americans who can afford health insurance choose not to have it, many of them because they are young, healthy and unlikely to need it. The second difference in Obama's phrasing is between "people without health insurance," in his old phrasing, and "American citizens" without coverage, as he said in last night's speech. Was Obama, faced with the (accurate) charge that the current Democratic health care proposals have no enforcement mechanism to prevent people in the United States illegally from receiving government-supported coverage, excluding non-citizens from his total?

Another more likely scenario is that he's about to embark upon an incremental approach, and if you make the problem seem more manageable, you're going to get people on board with an approach that appears to be more reasonable.

The main problem with this downgrade in the numbers is that the crisis suddenly becomes much less of a crisis.

Of course, the problem was never accessibility to health care. It's been about the cost of that health care.

2) And what about that cost? Who believes that any of the bills or proposals under consideration will be deficit and revenue neutral (requiring no additional tax hikes down the road)? Even the AP isn't buying into that as Don Surber notes:

OBAMA: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period.”

THE FACTS: Though there’s no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they’re ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.

House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill actually was deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn’t have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don’t face big annual pay cuts.

Their reasoning was that they already had decided to exempt this “doc fix” from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn’t have to be paid for because they decided it doesn’t have to be paid for.

The administration also said that since Obama already had included the doctor payment in his 10-year budget proposal, it didn’t have to be counted again.

That aside, the long-term prognosis for costs of the health care legislation has not been good.

Period? Looks to me like a promise that President Obama can not possibly deliver.

3) What about the promises that you'll be able to keep your existing coverage? After all, President Obama said that hundreds of millions of Americans already have coverage. Will it be affected? Well, not at the start, which means the year of inception of the plan. After that, the answer is that millions may start to see their benefits change substantially, as the AP notes:

The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.

In the past Obama repeatedly said, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

Now he’s stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan “requires” any change.

The President has at least recognized that he's making promises he can't keep, but this is one that will seriously affect public opinion on the proposal.

4) Cutting waste and fraud should be a big way to save money for the system, as numerous reports have shown massive fraud costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars annually. If Obama's plans don't go forward, how come there's no emphasis on making sure that reform of Medicare and Medicaid address the existing fraud and waste. After all, if the expansion of health care is predicated on curbing waste and fraud, why not impose it on Medicare and Medicaid first and see whether the cost savings materialize - and use that to incrementally address expanding care? Arnold Kling has more on that.

5) The President proposes an individual mandate for coverage. What happens if you don't want to get coverage? Well, you're going to pay one way or another, which will be a tax hike regardless of whether you are forced to get coverage or choose not to get coverage. You're paying for the program one way or another, and the need to get more healthy bodies paying into the system will be needed to cover the other major promise made under the health care proposals - that no one with preexisting conditions will be denied insurance.

6) Those who oppose the bill use fear to try and defeat any kind of progress on health care reform, but President Obama gets a pass when he makes similar doom and gloom prognostications?

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result.

The deficit grows because of unfunded mandates such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Profligate government spending adds to the deficit, and doing nothing to address those issues further destabilizes the government and the national economy. Doing nothing on health care since the last attempt by the Clinton Administration during their first term hasn't brought the nation to ruin, even though many of the same arguments are in play today. Businesses close because of bad business practices and a bad business climate - taxing them doesn't make them more competitive and increases the cost to the end user who bears the brunt of costs that are passed on to them. But worst of all is the claim that people will die if nothing is done.

Dying is a fact of life. The lack of a new government health plan doesn't change that. The President once again attempts to conflate access to care with cost.

Meanwhile, what about Rep. Joe Wilson (R) and his interruption of the President when he shouted out that Obama was a liar? It was wrong, and he apologized after the fact. Then again, for all those partisan Democrats out there who are busy complaining about the lack of decorum, Instapundit rounds up a greatest hits list of incidents where Democrats booed and hissed at President Bush during various appearances, including the State of the Union and the inauguration of President Obama this past January. And that doesn't even begin to address the repeated calls for impeachment over a policy dispute (the war in Iraq as a policy). Bad form? Absolutely. It just goes to show that there are all too many people in and around politics who are without class and attack the person instead of addressing the issues. Decorum in politics has gone out the window.

Will this speech do what all President Obama's other attempts did not accomplish? Did he sell this to Americans that we're in a crisis with health care and that we must address these issues? I'm not alone in thinking he didn't get it done.

Yale's Book On Mohammed Cartoons Wont Publish Them

The Mohammed cartoons that started riots around the world and left a wake of death and destruction will not be published in a book that is on Mohammed cartoons. The publisher, Yale University Press, opted not to include those cartoons.

Yale University has removed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from an upcoming book about how they caused outrage across the Muslim world, drawing criticism from prominent alumni and a national group of university professors.

Yale cited fears of violence.

Yale University Press, which the university owns, removed the 12 caricatures from the book "The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen. The book is scheduled to be released next week.

A Danish newspaper originally published the cartoons — including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban — in 2005. Other Western publications reprinted them.

The following year, the cartoons triggered massive protests from Morocco to Indonesia. Rioters torched Danish and other Western diplomatic missions. Some Muslim countries boycotted Danish products.

Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said Yale's decision effectively means: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands."

In a statement explaining the decision, Yale University Press said it consulted counterterrorism officials, diplomats and the top Muslim official at the United Nations.

Issue Spotting In Tonight's Presidential Health Care Speech To Congress

Keith Hennessey lays out the issues and questions that President Barack Obama may address in his speech before a joint session of Congress. Key among them are the following:

# “Universal” what? – The President has carefully linked the word “universal” to “health care” rather than to “health insurance” or “coverage.” “Universal health care” is an easier goal to accomplish than “universal coverage,” because those without pre-paid health insurance can use clinics and emergency care. If he uses words like “universal” or “every American” and links them to health care, it’s no change. If he links these words to “coverage” then he’s tacking further left. If he instead says “millions” or “more” and leaves out “universal” and “every,” then he is laying the groundwork to accept a radically scaled-back bill.

# Tax increases – Does he explicitly signal support for any particular tax increases? Obvious candidates include the Kerry proposal to tax health insurers for high-cost health plans, the House Democrat proposal to tax high-income people, and the new Baucus proposals to tax other medical provider sectors. If the President reiterates his proposal to raise tax rates on high-income people who itemize deductions, then pack it in. Congressional Democrats (& Republicans) killed that idea six months ago.

Both come down to issues of cost, and how the President addresses them in his speech will go a long way to showing his priorities within the bill, and where there is wiggle room for him to cut a deal acceptable in Congress (whether that's a deal to keep the Democrats all on board, or to put together a bipartisan agreement remains to be seen; the President hasn't met with the GOP on health care reform since April).

The Gorgeous Science of the Hubble Telescope

The Hubble Space Telescope was saved from an early ignominious shutdown after public opinion forced NASA to reconsider a mission to repair the Hubble. NASA had not wanted to carry out the mission because a flight profile to the Hubble would mean that if the shuttle were damaged during liftoff there was no way for the shuttle crew to seek refuge at the international space station while a replacement shuttle was sent up to rescue the crew.

It's a good thing that the Hubble was repaired and improved with new technologies, because the new images being beamed back to Earth are positively gorgeous.

The ultraviolet and infrared images of galaxies and nebulas are sharper than previous photos taken of the by Hubble before the upgrades.

"We couldn't be more thrilled with the quality of the images," said Keith Noll, leader of a team at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, which planned the early release observations. "The targets we've selected to showcase the telescope reveal the great range of capabilities in our newly upgraded Hubble."

Hubble has beamed amazing images back to Earth before. Earlier this summer, the telescope snapped pictures of the planet Jupiter when an asteroid smashed into it.

NASA said it plans to keep the powerful telescope in operation until 2013.

More images are here. There's much science to be done before the telescope is replaced in 2013, when a new space telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope is placed in orbit.

Guilty Pleas For Jersey City Duo In Massive NJ Corruption Bust

This is the first of what I expect to be a torrent of guilty pleas with federal prosecutors over the massive corruption bust that nailed 44 politicians, political bigwigs, and others in a sprawling corruption bust:

Two Jersey City officials are expected to plead guilty today in connection with the large corruption investigation that resulted in 44 arrests in July.

Guy Catrillo, a member of the Mayor's 'Action Bureau' and Maher Khalil of Jersey City's Health and Human Services Department are expected in federal court in Newark. A spokesman for the US Attorney's office would only say two unnamed officials would be making a court appearance.

The duo are expected to plead guilty, according to two sources. An FBI spokesman declined comment. Defense attorneys Michael Pedicini and Michael Koribanics did not immediately return calls as their offices said they were en route to the federal courthouse.

Khalil is charged with taking $30,000 in bribes while Catrillo is accused of taking $15,000 in improper payments. An FBI informant had posed as a developer willing to make illegal payoffs.

I would expect that they are naming names to lessen their own sentences and are cooperating with authorities. That's usually how such things are done, which means that it provides an incentive to turn state's evidence ahead of others so that you're not the one holding all the dirty laundry. With so many players, there's added incentive.

An End of Life Quandary

The New York Times posted a nurse's account of a terrifyingly and heartbreaking end of life situation where a young patient died after receiving all manner of advanced treatments.

We recently had a patient on my hospital floor who painfully brought to mind that suffering child and the story of Omelas. He was young, in his 20s, and had undergone an allogeneic stem cell transplant as the only chance of curing his cancer. He had many of the more severe complications that can occur with this treatment. A virus had turned his urine red with blood. His immune system waged a battle against the transplanted cells, leaving him temporarily blind and causing his skin to age unnaturally. His liver was slowly failing. He had almost constant diarrhea and for long periods got his only nutrition intravenously.

For months he stayed on our floor, slowly getting worse. In the end he couldn’t live without constant transfusions. Every time he stood up he leaked blood. Then his mind started to fail, too.

His doctors continued to throw one last-ditch treatment after another at him. Not one of them made a real difference in the patient’s condition, and each came with its own set of potentially dangerous side effects. Finally, and against the express wishes of at least one of his doctors, his parents decided to stop all medical care. Soon after they watched their son die.

Scenes like this are all too common in U.S. hospitals today. That is why proponents of health care reform call for provisions that would encourage patients to talk about end-of-life treatment long before they get there. For this patient, a lot of money was spent on care that made him worse when it could have been used to make someone else better. But more than that, we prolonged his suffering, racked his body with one toxic treatment after another, and held out false hope to him and his parents.

The nurse, and some of her coworkers, say that they don't think that this was a worthy expenditure of health care dollars.

I'm not sure I'd agree.

Scenes like this are all too common when it comes to cutting edge technologies and treatment options. Medicine is littered with millions of patients who benefit from improved treatment because of new technologies and treatment paths that weren't possible before.

I think to my own family's experiences with cancer. Two relatives died of cancer in the early 1980s - before the advent of MRI, CT, and other nuclear imaging. The doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering, where both received treatment - were tops in their field (and in the world) and yet they could do nothing to keep either from wasting away and dying. They tried radical cutting edge chemotherapy treatments that we now take for granted, but in the end, radiation treatments and chemo didn't get it done.

Now, those same cancers are treated with completely different outcomes - long term remission and cures. Advances in nuclear imaging and radiology allow pinpoint treatment and customized chemotherapy, giving a much better outcome. Yet, there are some cancers are still stubborn (see Kennedy's glioma or pancreatic cancer) and are perceived as a death-sentence. Even with gliomas and pancreatic cancer, there is a better chance of short term survival now than only a few short years ago, and the more that researchers and doctors get to treat such conditions, the better options become available.

The only way doctors gain the knowledge and expertise in treating incurable cases (which later become treatable and curable) is to treat them. Pursuing other options means that the pace of knowledge and advances in medicine slow.

I think that is an incredibly short-sighted approach.

So, while it is imperative for the families and doctors to discuss end of life treatments, making sure that all are aware of the outcomes and to prepare for death, it should be their combined decision taking all those factors into account.

[T]hugo Jumps on the Genocide Bandwagon

It's the fashionable season to blame Israel for carrying out a genocide against Palestinians. The latest to throw out this claptrap is none other than Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez. Chavez has been real busy lately, cozying up with the Iranian regime (which coincidentally has a corner on the genocide business - alternatively blaming Israel for committing genocide and calling for Israel's destruction - genocide). Here's what Chavez had to say:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has accused Israel of genocide against the Palestinian people, telling a French newspaper that the bombing of Gaza late last year was an unprovoked attack.

"The question is not whether the Israelis want to exterminate the Palestinians. They're doing it openly," Chavez said in an interview with Le Figaro published on Wednesday.

The Venezuelan president, who has just completed a tour of Middle Eastern and Arab countries, brushed aside Israeli assertions that its attack on Gaza was a response to rocket fire from Islamist group Hamas which rules the coastal enclave.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

"What was it if not genocide? ... The Israelis were looking for an excuse to exterminate the Palestinians," Chavez said, adding that sanctions should have been slapped on Israel.

Israel launched an offensive against the Gaza Strip on December 27, 2008, with the declared aim of curbing rocket fire from the region into southern Israel.

The land, sea and air assault lasted 22 days, and left some 1,300 Palestinians dead, according to medical sources.

So, what exactly was Chavez's context? He claims that Israel's Operation Cast Lead was genocide - completely ignoring the reason that Israel responded as it did - the thousands of rockets and mortars fired at Israelis for months.

Chavez claims that Israel has a right to exist, but then goes on talking about Palestinian rights, which but for Palestinian fecklessness, would have had a state alongside Israel back in 2000. Palestinians have self-determined, they chose the more extreme Hamas and jihad when Hamas rose to power, and which took over Gaza from Fatah in 2005. From that point forward, Hamas has sought ever more conflict with Israel, with the terror group treating Gazans as nothing more than cannon fodder. For all the claims of 1,200 Palestinians killed, the overwhelming majority were Hamas terrorists, and of the rest, most were killed because Hamas purposefully operated in densely populated areas.

Objectively, Israel is not carrying out genocide. Gaza's population continues growing and but for Palestinian terrorism, the security fence and Israeli military responses would not be necessary. Palestinians aren't wanting for food or anything else, but their leadership continues to agitate for jihad and unending war to secure Israel's destruction.

That's who Chavez sides with, and Iran would love nothing more than to push its own agenda at the same time.

Obama Joins The Soda Tax Brigade

If at first you don't succeed, go the failed New York nanny state route? Following calls by Democrats in the US Senate to impose a soda tax, which followed calls by Mayor Mike Bloomberg and NYS Governor David Paterson, President Obama apparently thinks that a soda tax is the way to raise revenues for his health care proposal.

The President, in an interview with Men's Health magazine released yesterday, said he thought taxing soda and other sugary drinks is worth putting on the table as Congress debates health care reform.

"It's an idea that we should be exploring," the president said. "There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that's been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else."

Obama is floating the idea seven months after a storm of protest forced poll-challenged Gov. Paterson to drop his plans for an 18% tax on soda and other sugary drinks.

Despite that debacle, congressional lawmakers have considered soda taxes as one way to cover the cost of revamping the nation's health care system, estimated to eat up much as $1 trillion over the next decade.

But Obama - who works out six days a week and keeps a bowl of apples in the Oval Office - has been largely mum on the controversial topic, at least until now.

I can't even give the President points for originality on this scheme. He's simply retreading the nanny state proposals of none other than New York State Governor David Paterson. It was silly when Paterson proposed the soda tax, and it's just as silly now.

But let's get down to brass tacks. President Obama needs to raise billions of dollars for his proposals. How much would the soda tax have to be to even be worth talking about? He doesn't say.

In fact, the same issues arise now that President Obama broaches the subject as when the Senators (or Gov. Paterson) did. The money raised would be a paltry sum in comparison to what's needed.

A tax of 3 cents per can would raise only $24 billion over 4 years. Paterson proposed a tax of 18%. Bloomberg offered something similar.

Democratic party nanny staters are running out of sins to tax. They find that sin taxes are far easier to digest because they aren't taxes that everyone incurs. Soda taxes are one area that would hit a wide spectrum of the population, and it would also be a regressive tax since the rich would be not nearly as affected by any such tax as the poor and middle class.

It might make more sense to quit subsidizing the sugar industry in the US, which would save $2 billion annually.


If people are truly concerned about obesity and their health, there's a simple solution that doesn't cost a damned thing - and may actually save you money in the short and long term.

Portion control.

You don't need the government to tax soda for better health care. You just have to take control over your own health and food choices.

UPDATE:
It's curious that the media is finally paying attention to the tax provisions within the existing versions of the health care bills floating around Washington. That includes the penalties imposed on people who opt not to buy insurance - a tax that would be a $3,800 hit. My readers would have known about that and other taxing provisions weeks ago (stronger penalty provisions as sought by well known tax cheat Charlie Rangel).

Enough of the Czars

It's enough already, don't you think? The Obama Administration is setting all manner of record with the appointment of czars to cover every imaginable aspect of government. The kerfuffle over Van Jones is a teachable moment (the fact is that he wasn't vetted and didn't have Senate confirmation for a key advisory position within the Obama Administration), but I'm sure that everyone will miss the point, so let me spell it out.

More scrutiny must be placed on how the czars are vetted. Some get confirmation, while many others aren't. The Republicans and their partisans have taken to calling this a "shadow government."

Shadow government? I don't think it means what they think it means.

Shadow government has a specific meaning - namely that it is the opposition government and usually occurs in parliamentary systems. It could also apply to a skeleton government to operate if the organs of governance are wiped out (terrorists, nuclear/wmd attacks, incapacitated, etc.).

What Obama and Democrats are doing with czars isn't a shadow government. It's unfettered governance without oversight from Congress, and Congress abdicated its responsibilities, meaning that it lost power to the Executive Branch. It's a vastly expanded use of czars and advisers that started decades earlier, but took on new significance with President Bush, particularly following 9/11 and then the credit market collapse.

In Obama's case, he's filling those slots to the apparent exclusion of policy positions within already established government entities like the Department of Treasury, where key positions remain unfilled. That's a questionable tactic for this Administration, but no one seems interested, least of all the media, when this should be a major story.

No one should have a problem with the president seeking advice and consent from trusted advisers, but those advisers should be thoroughly vetted by the Senate. Obama's vetting process is thorough screwed up and confirmations are only likely to further expose those deficiencies. That too is something that the Congress must address.

I don't think it's ignorance in terms of calling this a shadow government either. I think it's the lack of a term for what Obama is doing to avoid scrutiny of his advisers background by using the czar route instead of Congressional vetting via confirmation. "Shadow government" has "shadowy" and "evil" connotations, which is just how the Republican want it, but the Democrats have to address this now too - they have to justify how and why Obama is going that route, instead of confirmations.

A potential justification - and not one I agree with - is that the kinds of problems facing the country are more interrelated than ever before. Take the car czar position for example. A Dept. of Treasury official on automakers may have the economics expertise, but not experience in the auto market, while the Transportation Dept official doesn't have the economics background. I'd disagree, given that there are experts who are cross disciplinary and should be advising within the existing structures, and even if there aren't, the advisers should be confirmed.

Heck, Congress should be asking those questions, even if it's a Democrat in charge, because when a Republican finally takes the WH at some point in the future, they're going to cite Obama's precedence, and move ahead with still more unelected and unvetted positions.

And the Democrats wont do it, even if it means the loss of power by Congress as an institution, because it would expose the mess within the Obama Administration and how they choose their advisers.

If I were a Republican in Congress (or even any Democrat), I'd be urging a law that requires all "czars" be confirmed - to prevent any end-run around confirmation process, and to make sure that existing positions are filled that are for the same subject area.

In other words, if there's a confirmation-eligible position in the Treasury, you can't go ahead and leave that position unfilled while you create a czar that does the same thing - with a position that is not confirmed via Senate.

It's so common-sense, it wont get done.

UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin emails to note that the NY Times did run a story about unfilled positions last month. I should have realized that as well, seeing how I wrote a posting on the same and that the czars were a poor attempt at an end run around the confirmation process.

UPDATE:
I note that Freedom's Lighthouse posts video showing Rep. Mike Pence (R) calling for a suspension of all czars and background checks on all those who were already appointed.

Yet Another NYC Buildings Department Scandal

Building inspectors being bribed and mob connections in New York City seems so passe and yet here we are with still another scandal with inspectors on the take. That imperils all New Yorkers since the inspectors are a line of defense against shoddy construction work that threatens the safety and well being of New Yorkers.

This has a New Jersey origin, with investigations into the Luchese crime family's drug business, and extended into New York City and the Department of Buildings:

The corrupt Department of Buildings workers -- who lined their pockets by ignoring violations or expediting construction and building work permits -- will be arrested later this month, along with about two dozen Luchese crime-family captains, soldiers and associates, sources said.
Sponsored Links

"This is going to be big," a well-placed source said.

Among the other startling revelations:

* Two of the crooked city employees are known by law enforcement as full-blown Luchese associates.

* The investigation included several landlords who own buildings in Manhattan and The Bronx -- with at least one facing certain arrest, sources say.

* About 50 search warrants were executed in city offices, mob-run social clubs, wire rooms and wiseguys' homes.

The nearly two-year probe grew out of a 2007 New Jersey case involving a Luchese faction that ran a staggering $2 billion-a-year gambling operation and supplied drugs and cellphones to Bloods gang members in state prisons.

That probe -- which netted 32 wiseguys -- soon spread across the Hudson River into the family's Big Apple hierarchy, prompting surveillance and wiretapping by the NYPD and Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau's office, the sources said.

The probers, who made hundreds of hours of recordings, quickly found mobsters taking bets and conducting loan-sharking operations worth tens of millions of dollars.

I'm surprised that the report came out before the arrests since the officials have the chance to cut and run now, but if all these individuals are under surveillance, it would be a futile gesture. Typically, these kinds of reports come out within hours or days before or after the arrests are made. We might see the arrests carried out sooner, rather than later.

Obama: It's Time To Act On Health Care

"It's time to act on health care" is the message that President Obama is going to deliver tomorrow after giving a nondescript speech to school kids today. That speech to kids got a whole lot of blustery attention from GOPers over the weekend, but I'm rather mystified over why. The need for educated kids is acute - and getting kids to focus on science and math has been a battle for decades. Then again, that's the problem, isn't it- no matter what the President says, the situation remains the same because the education system is governed by inertia and not on sound education principles that put the kids first.

It's not like he's going to say anything out of the ordinary for a speech of this type. People complained about what the Department of Education suggested for teachers to do in accompanying the speech, but that too was adjusted before the speech ran. The speech includes references to AIDS research and homelessness, but they're nothing but buzzwords that show sympathy to a particular interest group in and among Democrats, but no more.

Moreover, many students simply aren't in school as yet (they start tomorrow in NYC and on the 10th in Boston and Los Angeles for instance). Other schools are simply ignoring the speech altogether, including one in Chicago.

No, if you want reasons to complain, perhaps it's the fact that this speech will put the kids to sleep. It's 10 times longer than the Gettysburg Address, arguably the most important speech ever given by a President. There is something to be said for brevity and conciseness, but that doesn't appear to be a trait that this President has. He's hoping for a grand sweeping gesture, and the speech to kids simply isn't it. You write a speech for the audience, and on those grounds this speech fails. This is a speech by him, and about him, rather than the kids (at least those who are around to listen to it).

Note too that the Democrats slammed President George HW Bush's speech in 1991, and sought to investigate it for the improper use of funds (the investigation turned up nothing, but to claim that Democrats haven't done this tit-for-tat complaining over Presidential speeches is disingenuous). The GOP needs to pick and choose its fights, and the speech to kids is the sideshow compared to where the real action.

The real speech to watch is tomorrow's joint speech to Congress.

A "fired-up" President Obama declared that it's finally "time to act" on overhauling the nation's health care system.

"Every debate, at some point, comes to an end. At some point, it's time to decide. At some point, it's time to act," he told labor leaders in Cincinnati on Monday afternoon.

"It's time to act and get this thing done," he insisted.

Obama dusted off his "fired-up, ready-to-go" campaign chant during the speech in hopes of recapturing his mojo and setting the tone for what could be a make-or-break week for his presidency.

Lawmakers return to Capitol Hill Tuesday following a turbulent summer.

Obama and Democrats in his corner were repeatedly attacked by conservatives and constituents angry or confused over plans to revamp the nation's health care system. Republican support evaporated.

The President's poll numbers plummeted.

To wrestle the debate back onto his turf - and on his terms - Obama is delivering a prime-time speech tomorrow to Congress. If his call to action fails to motivate lawmakers, experts say, it could damage him politically.

Obama still has Democrats control the agenda in both the House and Senate. If he fails to get any kind of health care proposal through, it would damage him politically going into the 2010 election.

The problem is that the public has soured on the Administration and Democrats' attempts to claim that there's a crisis of health care in this country. People have realized that there's a difference between access to health care (which is universal - see how illegal aliens can obtain health care without any health insurance, much to the detriment of the hospitals that expend vast sums to provide such care), and the cost for such care - whether it's through private insurance and/or out-of-pocket costs, which include higher costs to offset the provision of care to illegal aliens and lower reimbursement rates provided under state and federal health care programs.

Obama's problem isn't that he hasn't been forceful. It's that he's not being persuasive. He called for a health care overhaul, and then left the details up to Congress, which turned it into a ill-understood and unread 1,000+ page behemoth. He hasn't made the case to justifiably overhaul a system that provides health insurance to 85% of Americans (based on the widely used 50 million uninsured (which itself is a dubious figure that includes millions of illegal aliens and those who are transitioning between insurance plans or who are eligible for various programs but choose not to use them and a US population of 300 million). People who are already satisfied with their health insurance aren't keen on a proposal that will change how things are done, and while the President has said that you'll be able to keep your existing insurance, the problem is various versions making their way through Congress have phase-in dates that allow for employers to shift employees to the proposed plans.

Then, there's the mother of all problems for the President.

Cost.

There's no way that his proposals are revenue neutral, which means tax hikes are inevitable (above the tax hikes and surcharges indicated in the existing bills).

As expected, Baucus’ proposal does not include a public insurance option, but instead features insurance cooperatives that could appeal to moderate Democrats and perhaps some Republicans. That’s a major difference from bills approved by three House committees and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee.

Baucus’ plan also is expected to be less generous in terms of subsidies and coverage than those bills – which, along with the absence of the public option, is sure to rankle more liberal Democrats.

The bipartisan group also is considering a tax on insurance companies
that provide expensive coverage plans. And one feature that might help satisfy the more liberal members of the committee is that insurance companies could face a separate new fee to help pay for the plan. It would be determined based on market share, and could raise $6 billion a year starting in 2010, the sources said.

The Baucus proposal doesn't quite get the fact that if you raise taxes on those insurance companies, they will pass through the costs to the consumer in the form of higher premiums and/or lower benefits. The companies aren't going to eat those costs.

President Obama has repeatedly attempted to claim that his proposals will save money over the first 10 years of implementation, but the CBO has already shot down that claim, finding that it will be in deficit, and will never save money. Preventative care is far more costly than the Administration was willing to countenance, and cost savings aren't likely to be there. Moreover, there's the problems with existing health care systems operated by the government such as the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service, both of which provide substandard care far too often to be seen as a model for all Americans.

Then, there's the question of who's going to provide all this care if there's 50 million people who aren't receiving this care. If you assume the 50 million (which I think is overblown based on various figures, but which works wonders to highlight the fact that at least 85% of Americans have insurance coverage), who is going to be there to provide the care without lowering the quality for everyone else. As it is, health care providers are already overburdened and there are shortages of nurses and general practitioners in various parts of the country. The proposals do nothing to address those concerns. They aren't going to be created out of thin air - in fact, it would take years to produce a crop of doctors to cover that many new patients into the system, which means quality is sure to drop in the short run.

The fact is that if the President dropped the current Democrats' plans (HR 3200 or the Baucus proposal in the Senate), he could find a plan that would reform the system and expand coverage to more Americans without scrapping a system that works for 85% of Americans. It would involve expanding insurance coverage regionally and nationally, as well as reduce costs to those Americans looking for cheaper insurance options. The problem is that the President would run into a roadblock from Democrats who want the public option, which means that he risks running afoul of Congressional Democrats.

It's a real test of leadership to see if he does what he says (call for bipartisanship) or kowtows to Congressional Democrats who have largely frozen Republicans out of input on the crafting of the bills.

Israel Approves Community Construction Project

Nowhere in the world does the construction of homes get at much scrutiny as in Israel and the territories in the West Bank. Israel approved construction of 455 homes. That's got top billing at Drudge Report for the moment, and it also has significant coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post, and other major outlets.

Why?

The construction of new Israeli communities is not now, and has never been, a stumbling block to a peace deal.

Let's start with the basics. Note that the media reports call these settlements, even if they are nothing more than homes approved by the government to expand existing communities. They are also homes. Nothing more.

Homes can change ownership. Israel has proven that twice - and the lessons have not apparently been learned by the media covering such instances.

In the first, Israel withdrew from major communities in Sinai as part of the comprehensive peace accord between Israel and Egypt in 1979. Israel forcibly removed its citizens from those communities in the name of peace.

In the second, Israel again forcibly removed Israeli citizens from communities located in Gaza, as part of the 2005 Gaza disengagement plan. That too was in the name of peace, but the Gazans instead turned those communities into terror training camps, rocket and mortar launching platforms, and generally destroyed the infrastructure that remained.

Yet, the media and the Obama Administration are trying to get Israel to curtail the construction of these homes to restart the peace process. The problem remains, as it has been, that Israel lacks a partner in peace. The Palestinian Authority has refused to accept two comprehensive offers for peace - without even the courtesy of a counterproposal. Arafat refused to accept a deal in 2000. Abbas refused to accept a similar deal from Olmert last year. Both would have led to a 2-state solution, but neither would have given the Palestinians what they want most - the ability to resettle in Israel and fundamentally alter the demographics to an extent that it would destroy Israel's very character within a matter of years.

When Israel finally has a partner for peace that accepts a two-state solution with Israel as a Jewish state alongside the Palestinians, then the peace process will actually move forward. The whole kerfuffle over home construction is a sideshow designed to confuse and obfuscate the true nature of the ongoing conflict, which at its core boils down to the fact that the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel's existence at all. Hamas and Fatah both refuse to accept this; both refuse to accept the goals of Oslo.

Hamas has no intention of relinquishing control over Gaza, where they're under assault from terrorists who are even more extreme than they are. Those terrorists want to turn Gaza into an Islamic emirate and are aligned and affiliated with al Qaeda. There's no incentive for them to moderate their views, all while they keep Gazans impoverished and have such a reckless disdain for human life. Hamas sees Gazans as nothing more than cannon fodder and propaganda opportunities.

Fatah maintains a veneer of legitimacy, but that's only when compared to Hamas. They maintain a grip on the West Bank only because the West continues to support the regime, while many on the ground are more radical and support Hamas. The occasional outbreak of violence between Hamas and Fatah shows that the deep divisions among the Palestinians remains, and the fact that Hamas and Fatah leaders manage to live a comfortable existence while keeping many of their fellow Palestinians in refugee camps in the hopes of resettling them inside Israel (beyond the Green Line) shows the delusional nature of the Palestinian aspirations and goals.

The Obama Administration's push to move forward on the peace process shows that he sides with Palestinian aspirations and engages in the pseudoreality that diplomats have labored under for years. They ignore the rhetoric and propaganda spewing forth from Palestinian and Arab media sources calling for Israel's destruction, while playing up the few ambivalent words calling for a 2-state solution. It's the words spoken by Palestinian leaders to the Palestinians that carry the real weight. When Palestinian leaders have called for Israel's destruction for generations, it becomes ingrained and part of the very psyche of the Palestinian polity. A Palestinian leader who pursues peace under those circumstances is facing a death sentence. He will not last long in the face of pressure from his own group, let alone the more extremist terrorists. They will not labor to fulfill a peace deal, because that too would mean confronting terrorists within their midst who consider anyone who isn't pursuing Israel's destruction openly and overtly to be an appeaser and sellout of Palestinian nationhood.

Housing Market Still Reeling From Gov't Intervention

The housing market is still reeling from the government intervention and distortion of the lending market, but the only consolation from proponents of that policy is that they contend things could have been even worse had the federal government not moved to prop up the collapsing credit market.

While this made it possible for many borrowers to keep getting loans and helped protect the housing market from further damage, the government's newly dominant role -- nearly 90 percent of all new home loans are funded or guaranteed by taxpayers -- has far-reaching consequences for prospective home buyers and taxpayers.

The government has the power to decide who is qualified for a loan and who is not. As a result, many borrowers among both poor and rich are frozen out of the market.

Nearly one-third of those who obtained home loans during the boom years of 2005 and 2006 couldn't get one today, according to mortgage industry analysts. Many of these borrowers were never really able to afford their homes and should not have gotten loans. But many others could, and borrowers like them are now running into tougher government standards.

At the same time, taxpayers are on the hook for most of the loans that are still being made if they go bad. And they are also on the line for any losses in the massive portfolios of old loans at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which own or back more than $5 trillion in mortgages.

There is growing evidence that many loans being guaranteed by the government have a significant risk of defaulting. Delinquencies are spiking. And the Federal Housing Administration, another source of government support for home loans, is quickly eating through its financial cushion as losses mount.

All the efforts to increase the percentage of Americans who were homeowners has been a failure. Lax lending standards allowed the rate to rise to 69.3%, but that was a bubble of epic proportions, since many of those who were borrowing to buy homes had no way to pay for them once terms on adjustable rates rose above their initial teaser rates. With the shakeout in the real estate market, the homeownership rate sagged back to 67.4%, which is little different than had the lenders utilized more conservative and traditional lending terms.

The tighter lending standards chafe at those who wanted to expand homeownership, and those who thought that expanding homeownership among minorities was a laudable goal. Of course, the economics of such moves were never considered, let alone the fact that these people lacked a way to pay for the homes and couldn't meet even reduced lending standards.

The move to higher lending standards will infuse the markets with a dose of fiscal realism and safer lending and credit.

Still, there are huge problems, including the fact that taxpayers are on the hook if even a small percentage of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac loans go bad. The taxpayer hit? You don't want to know:

Taxpayers could be hit with a staggering tab even if a small proportion of loans go bad. Fannie and Freddie now own or guarantee more than $5 trillion in home loans. (That equals two-thirds of the debt the U.S. government owes.)

And many could be in trouble. Mortgages owned and backed by the companies often required down payments of no more than 10 percent. With housing prices down sharply, many borrowers are underwater, owing more than their home is worth, so they cannot sell or refinance to pay off troubled loans.

As the economy has deteriorated, delinquencies are spiking and losses are mounting. In the past year and half, the companies have posted more than $150 billion in losses.

Similar risks threaten to engulf FHA. Nearly 8 percent of FHA loans at the end of June were either 30 days late or in the process of foreclosure, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. That compares with 5.4 percent of such loans a year ago.

As a result, FHA has been exhausting much of its loss reserves, which are funded by premiums paid by borrowers. The reserves currently stand at an estimated 3 percent of all outstanding loans, half of what they were just a year ago. If the reserves fall below the 2 percent threshold set by Congress, they could require a taxpayer bailout.

The push to increase affordable housing by distorting the mortgage lending business economics was anything but affordable. It's been an unmitigated disaster.