Dems Hid Damning Health Care Report Before Vote

Jim Hoft reports:

A damning health care report generated by actuaries at the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department was given to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the health care vote. She hid the report from the public until a month after democrats rammed their nationalized health care bill through Congress.

Transparency what?

The report.

Saturday Reading

What was that about violence and misspelled signs? Will the left condemn? And spellcheck?

Rolling Tea Party to greet Obama in Quincy and Macon

Macon County Patriots plan a massive rally for Obama when he rolls through to view the POET Biorefining ethanol plant

– This breaks my heart: Homeless hero dies in the street and 25, TWENTY-FIVE people walk past him

Definitive Reading: Profits of 14 Top Insurers Account for Two Days HCR Spending

Continuing to pierce the falsity that insurers make oodles of cash monnay:

In 2009, the largest 14 insurers had profits of roughly $9 billion; that approached 0.4 percent of total health spending of $2.472 trillion.

[…]

If total health spending is $2.472 trillion per year, that’s about $6.8 billion per day and $283 million per hour. So the profits from last year of $9 billion of the 14 largest insurers account for about 32 hours of annual spending on health care or less than two days of the total spending. It’s then all of the other costs that account for the rest of the 99.6% of spending and the other 363 days.

h/t Fleckman

Saturday Reading Roundup

Rosie O’Donnell is a birfer (Radio Equalizer)

NYT execs get bonuses for pushing fake diversity (Business Insider)

Another rousing game of Guess This Religion! (Atlas Shrugs)

Conservatives win Texas school board battle, school books to GASP present ideologies in a balanced manner (NYT)

Hugo Chavez to Senn Penn “thank you for being a friend.” (AP) (h/t “Golden Girls”)

Obama’s USAspending.gov fails independent government audit for full information and accuracy (LA Times)

Reading

From Glenn Reynolds:

In fact, when I think of the federal government’s brand now, I think of Schlitz beer. Schlitz was once a top national brew. But, in search of short-term gains, it began gradually reducing its quality in tiny increments to save money, substituting cheaper malt, fewer hops and “accelerated” brewing for its traditional approach.

Each incremental decline was imperceptible to consumers, but after a few years, people suddenly noticed that the beer was no good anymore. Sales collapsed, and a “Taste My Schlitz” campaign designed to lure beer drinkers back failed when the “improved” brew turned out not to be any better. A brand image that had been accumulated over decades was lost in a few years, and it has never recovered.

Reading: Guns Decrease Murder Rates

More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

[…]

A telling story is illustrated by the murder numbers since the handgun ban and gun-lock bans were struck down. Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI’s preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington’s population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008.

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.’s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

What He Saw at the Tea Party Convention

Glenn Reynolds:

There were promises of transparency and of a new kind of collaborative politics where establishment figures listened to ordinary Americans. We were going to see net spending cuts, tax cuts for nearly all Americans, an end to earmarks, legislation posted online for the public to review before it is signed into law, and a line-by-line review of the federal budget to remove wasteful programs.

These weren’t the tea-party platforms I heard discussed in Nashville last weekend. They were the campaign promises of Barack Obama in 2008.

Mr. Obama made those promises because the ideas they represented were popular with average Americans. So popular, it turns out, that average Americans are organizing themselves in pursuit of the kind of good government Mr. Obama promised, but has not delivered.

[…]

Tea partiers are still angry at federal deficits, at Washington’s habit of rewarding failure with handouts and punishing success with taxes and regulation, and the general incompetence that has marked the first year of the Obama presidency. But they’re no longer depressed.

Instead, they seem energized.

[…]

Press attention focused on Sarah Palin’s speech, which was well-received by the crowd. But the attendees I met weren’t looking to her for direction. They were hoping she would move in theirs. Right now, the tea party isn’t looking for leaders so much as leaders are looking to align themselves with the tea party.

You must read the whole thing.

Glenn gets it completely. It’s why the St. Louis Tea Party, among many others, refuse to endorse candidates, instead demanding that candidates who seek consideration endorse the tea party principles of limited government, individual liberty, and low taxes.