A four-point plan for health-care reform.
By Paul Howard
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
If you’re not depressed about America’s “private” health-care system, you’re probably living in a cave somewhere in the Rockies. The bad news seems neverending: health-care costs keep going up, insurance coverage keeps going down, and routine errors — from deadly hospital infections to drug mix-ups — plague the system.
For all of America’s vaunted innovation — we lead the world in creating new drugs and devices that fight disease and save lives — health care is extraordinarily expensive, and quality can be maddeningly uneven. Americans, normally cheerful capitalists, can be forgiven for thinking that government should step in and fix the mess.
That would be a mistake.
After all, government helped create much of the mess to begin with. The tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, which dates back to World War II, leads employees to choose plans with high premiums (paid with pre-tax dollars), but low deductibles for routine care, driving up health-care costs. Medicare pays for quantity of care, not quality — leading to massive spending disparities in care for chronically ill patients across the country; data from Dartmouth researchers shows that more money doesn’t translate into better care. Meanwhile, other state and federal regulations strangle innovation and discourage competition.
The solution is to make health care much more like other sectors of the economy, where competition drives entrepreneurs to offer a wide range of affordable products and services to consumers — like $300 laptops, cut-rate vacation packages sold online, and discount brokerage firms. To unleash a new wave of entrepreneurial energy in health care, policymakers should focus on a four-point plan of action:
Play fair in health care
Imagine charging low-income Americans more for health insurance. Outraged yet? We already do that. The tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance favors higher-income workers, who get a bigger deduction and are more likely to work at firms that offer insurance. Low-income Americans working at jobs that don’t offer insurance end up paying much more for their insurance out of pocket — if they can even afford it. The tax penalty against individually purchased health insurance (30 percent or more, depending on income) is regressive and unfair.
A tax deduction or tax credit for everyone who purchases their own health plans would be much more equitable, giving millions of uninsured access to insurance. A risk-adjusted voucher for our poorest, sickest patients (think cancer) would allow them to buy into insurance markets and encourage insurers to seek them out. Employers, unions, and other civic groups could act as buying clubs for their members — helping them navigate the system and find the best values.
One nation, one market
A 2007 study from eHealthInsurance found that monthly individual insurance premiums ranged from a low of $98 in Iowa to $338 in New York; the national average was $148. The disparity is partly explained by state regulations (like mandated coverage for chiropractors) that drive up costs. It’s time America became one market when it comes to health insurance — allowing consumers to buy insurance from across state lines. Freed from expensive state mandates, insurance would become more affordable, consumers would have more choices, and companies could target marketing efforts at the uninsured, newly empowered with tax-advantaged dollars.
Stop being part of the problem
When it looked like retail health-care clinics might open in Boston, Mayor Thomas Menino went ballistic: “Allowing retailers to make money off of sick people is wrong.” Menino’s kneejerk response is typical of policymakers who think markets and health care can’t mix. They couldn’t be more wrong. In a recent report from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, researchers found that retail clinics in the U.S. have grown from about 200 in 2006 to over 1,000 this year, getting high marks from consumers for convenience and quality of care. Compared with a doctor’s office or ER visit for minor ailments, retail clinics offer consumers accessible, high-quality treatments at an affordable price. Deloitte praises the clinics as an innovation whose “potential is profound.”
Retail clinics prove that high-quality care can be delivered by skilled nurse practitioners in non-traditional environments — but some states, like New York, prohibit the “corporate practice of medicine” (which limits the ability of for-profit companies to employ health care professionals) or try to slap retail clinics with restrictive regulations that drive up costs. State “certificate of need” laws also prohibit competitors from challenging local hospital monopolies with higher quality or more affordable services. Rather than stifling innovation and competition to protect existing providers (like nonprofit hospitals), policymakers should throw out their old assumptions and find new ways to encourage choice and competition in health-care markets.
The feds need to lead by example
Would you rent a television for $7,000 over three years if you could buy it for a tenth that price? No? Well, Medicare would. Medicare pays fixed prices for Durable Medical Equipment, set by 1980s-era regulations. According to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, Medicare rents an oxygen concentrator at the price quoted above — with Medicare patients shelling out a 20-percent co-payment for the rental ($1,418) — that it could buy outright for only $600. When Medicare was set to implement a competitive bidding program for DME last month, Congress killed it.
Government spending on health care, particularly for Medicare, is out of control and unsustainable. One of the few bright spots is Medicare Part D, where competition and consumer choice for prescription drugs have made the program a success with seniors and saved taxpayers billions of dollars. If Congress is serious about lowering health-care costs and sustaining Medicare for the long haul, it will have to embrace competition and choice throughout the program.
The best thing that government can do to “fix” health care is to make it more like other, more competitive sectors of the economy by setting the basic rules for competition and transparency, policing fraud and corruption, and then getting out of the way and letting markets and consumers decide what works. This is the formula that explains America’s leadership of the global economy — and it’s a long overdue prescription for health-care reform.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
America the Uncompetitive
Wall Street Journal
Friday, August 15, 2008
The new international tax rankings are out for 2008, and congratulations to Washington, D.C., are again in order. Our political class has managed to maintain America's rank with the second highest corporate tax rate in the world at 39.3% (average combined federal and state).
Only Japan is slightly higher overall, though if you are silly enough to base a corporation in California, Iowa, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or other states with high corporate levies, your tax rate on business income is even higher than in Tokyo. For the first time, the U.S. statutory rate is now 50% higher than the average of our international competitors, continuing a long-term trend as the rest of the world keeps reducing corporate tax rates. (See nearby chart).
Economists argue over how much this tax penalty on corporate profits injures U.S. competitiveness and drives capital overseas. We've long believed that it hurts a lot. And now even the folks at the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) say they agree.
A new OECD study, "Taxes and Economic Growth," examines national tax burdens and their impact on growth and incomes in member countries. It concludes that "corporate taxes are most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes." The study adds that "investment is adversely affected by corporate taxation," and that the most profitable and rapidly growing companies tend to be the most sensitive to high business tax rates.
In Washington, meanwhile, the politicians are still living in their own populist alternative universe. Last week Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota waved around a new politically generated study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) finding that 28% of large U.S. corporations paid no income tax in 2005. "It's time for big corporations to pay their fair share," Mr. Dorgan roared.
Well, the Tax Foundation looked at those numbers and found that, among the large companies that paid no taxes, 85% of them also made no profits that year. American Airlines and General Motors escaped income tax for 2005 through the clever tax dodge of losing $862 million and $10.5 billion, respectively. How unpatriotic.
The GAO data only add to the case for cutting U.S. corporate rates. America now has the worst of all worlds: high corporate tax rates, but also lots of loopholes passed by Congress at the behest of favored businesses to avoid the confiscatory rate. This imposes huge compliance costs as businesses scramble to exploit the loopholes, with the result of less revenue for the government.
The average European nation has tax rates on corporate income 10 percentage points lower than the U.S., but those countries on average raise 50% more as a share of GDP in corporate taxes than does the U.S., according to a 2007 study by the Treasury Department. Ireland with its 12.5% rate captures a higher share of its GDP (3.4%) in corporate taxes than the U.S. does (2.5%) with its 39.3% rate.
To correct this revenue dearth, Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress are proposing to pry more tax money out of U.S. companies that have profitable affiliates outside the U.S. Mr. Obama is also shamelessly taking the Byron Dorgan line that the problem is venal U.S. CEOs rather than the nutty U.S. tax code.
One proposal would tax foreign profits when they are earned, rather than waiting until the dollars are brought back to the U.S. This may raise more revenue in the short term, but it would also accelerate the trend of U.S. companies moving entirely offshore, or being bought out by Asians and Europeans so they can escape onerous U.S. taxes.
John McCain has proposed cutting the 35% federal corporate tax rate to 25%. That's a good start, but even that would leave the U.S. with a combined state and federal rate nearly five percentage points above the global average. With corporate tax rates falling around the world, and with its damage to investment increasingly obvious, abolishing the U.S. corporate income tax should be on the table. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin have proposed replacing the corporate tax with a value-added consumption tax. We worry about a VAT turning into a runaway money machine for government, but something has to give on the corporate tax.
Every month that goes by without tax reform, America is a relatively less attractive place to do business. Over the past 18 months, nine of the 30 most developed nations and 20 countries world-wide -- from Israel to Germany to Turkey -- have cut their corporate tax rates. Nations are slashing rates to attract capital and jobs from the U.S., and the tragedy is that our politicians keep making it easy for them.
Friday, August 15, 2008
The new international tax rankings are out for 2008, and congratulations to Washington, D.C., are again in order. Our political class has managed to maintain America's rank with the second highest corporate tax rate in the world at 39.3% (average combined federal and state).
Only Japan is slightly higher overall, though if you are silly enough to base a corporation in California, Iowa, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or other states with high corporate levies, your tax rate on business income is even higher than in Tokyo. For the first time, the U.S. statutory rate is now 50% higher than the average of our international competitors, continuing a long-term trend as the rest of the world keeps reducing corporate tax rates. (See nearby chart).Economists argue over how much this tax penalty on corporate profits injures U.S. competitiveness and drives capital overseas. We've long believed that it hurts a lot. And now even the folks at the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) say they agree.
A new OECD study, "Taxes and Economic Growth," examines national tax burdens and their impact on growth and incomes in member countries. It concludes that "corporate taxes are most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes." The study adds that "investment is adversely affected by corporate taxation," and that the most profitable and rapidly growing companies tend to be the most sensitive to high business tax rates.
In Washington, meanwhile, the politicians are still living in their own populist alternative universe. Last week Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota waved around a new politically generated study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) finding that 28% of large U.S. corporations paid no income tax in 2005. "It's time for big corporations to pay their fair share," Mr. Dorgan roared.
Well, the Tax Foundation looked at those numbers and found that, among the large companies that paid no taxes, 85% of them also made no profits that year. American Airlines and General Motors escaped income tax for 2005 through the clever tax dodge of losing $862 million and $10.5 billion, respectively. How unpatriotic.
The GAO data only add to the case for cutting U.S. corporate rates. America now has the worst of all worlds: high corporate tax rates, but also lots of loopholes passed by Congress at the behest of favored businesses to avoid the confiscatory rate. This imposes huge compliance costs as businesses scramble to exploit the loopholes, with the result of less revenue for the government.
The average European nation has tax rates on corporate income 10 percentage points lower than the U.S., but those countries on average raise 50% more as a share of GDP in corporate taxes than does the U.S., according to a 2007 study by the Treasury Department. Ireland with its 12.5% rate captures a higher share of its GDP (3.4%) in corporate taxes than the U.S. does (2.5%) with its 39.3% rate.
To correct this revenue dearth, Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress are proposing to pry more tax money out of U.S. companies that have profitable affiliates outside the U.S. Mr. Obama is also shamelessly taking the Byron Dorgan line that the problem is venal U.S. CEOs rather than the nutty U.S. tax code.
One proposal would tax foreign profits when they are earned, rather than waiting until the dollars are brought back to the U.S. This may raise more revenue in the short term, but it would also accelerate the trend of U.S. companies moving entirely offshore, or being bought out by Asians and Europeans so they can escape onerous U.S. taxes.
John McCain has proposed cutting the 35% federal corporate tax rate to 25%. That's a good start, but even that would leave the U.S. with a combined state and federal rate nearly five percentage points above the global average. With corporate tax rates falling around the world, and with its damage to investment increasingly obvious, abolishing the U.S. corporate income tax should be on the table. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin have proposed replacing the corporate tax with a value-added consumption tax. We worry about a VAT turning into a runaway money machine for government, but something has to give on the corporate tax.
Every month that goes by without tax reform, America is a relatively less attractive place to do business. Over the past 18 months, nine of the 30 most developed nations and 20 countries world-wide -- from Israel to Germany to Turkey -- have cut their corporate tax rates. Nations are slashing rates to attract capital and jobs from the U.S., and the tragedy is that our politicians keep making it easy for them.
Europe's Hangover
By Thomas Mayer
Thursday, August 21 2008
The 0.2% drop in the euro zone's second-quarter GDP was not according to script. Only two months ago, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet had expected the economy to continue to grow "at a moderate rate." Now, with the latest business and consumer confidence indicators suggesting also a weak third quarter, the signs point to a recession.
Many Europeans are exasperated. How is it possible that the euro-area economy is feeling the pinch while the U.S. economy, where the financial crisis originated, seems to be getting away relatively lightly?
Well, the euro-area economy has been anything but an innocent bystander to the merry party going on across the Atlantic during recent years. Rather, it has actively joined in and is now suffering from a major hangover. But unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, the ECB has been withholding the aspirin.
It all started with the heavyweights of the emerging markets, notably China, India and Brazil, opening up to international trade. Combined with their pursuit of competitive exchange rates and their emphasis on sound government finances, this liberalization paved the way for rapid export growth.
The economic dividends of this development strategy quickly piled up: Previously unproductive Chinese peasants became efficient assembly-line workers; a new class of Indian "knowledge workers" was created; and Brazil used its vast natural resources more productively.
The emerging heavyweights' growth strategies, though, caused some headaches in the industrialized world. Here, cheap imported products and services were crowding out more costly domestic substitutes, depressing prices and wages, and causing job losses. Policy makers, with the Fed in the vanguard, fought back by stimulating demand through lower interest rates.
Easy money seemed a low-risk strategy in a world threatened by deflation. However, cutting the risk-free rate to record low levels had its side effects. Asset prices surged and, more importantly, speculation was encouraged. As predicted by post-Keynesian theories of financial instability, financial markets and business cycles fluctuated between expansion and contraction.
The first big cycle affected the equity markets, culminating in the dot-com bubble of 1999-2000 that was followed by a rerating of equities and deleveraging of the corporate sector. The second big cycle is now running its course in the housing markets and, thanks to the especially high degree of leverage associated with this asset class, in the credit markets. Moreover, a third, smaller cycle is playing itself out in the commodities markets.
The industrialized world's economic growth -- largely driven by monetary policy -- had its counterpart in explosive export-led growth in the emerging market economies. Despite huge swings in a few equity markets, the global financial instability didn't affect emerging market economies as much as industrialized countries, where the financial sector plays a bigger role in the economy
Rather, the expansion has run into supply bottlenecks -- created mainly by the low supply elasticity of primary commodities, where rising prices don't lead to more production -- and rising consumer goods inflation. Instead of exporting deflation, emerging-market economies have now become a source of inflation (mainly by boosting commodity prices), which is hitting industrial countries like a boomerang.
With the turn of the U.S. housing market, the associated subprime crisis, the full-blown global financial crisis, and the break-out of previously suppressed inflation, the credit-driven expansion has come to an end. Like a wave crashing ashore, it is creating significant economic turbulences.
The credit-driven expansion at the global level has had its mirror images within the euro area. Some countries, such as Spain, France and Ireland, also grew on the back of a credit-financed and housing market-driven consumption expansion, following the U.S. example. Others, most importantly Germany, supplied the goods demanded by consumers and investors in other euro-area countries and the rest of the world, playing a role akin to that of the emerging-market countries with large current-account surpluses. When the credit cycle turned down, the music also stopped for the euro area economy. But the reaction of policy makers was significantly different.
The Federal Reserve, under the leadership of Chairman Ben Bernanke, tolerated a rise of inflation on the back of higher commodity prices -- which it expected to be reversed once the commodity cycle turns down -- and focused on the eventually deflationary effects of the housing slump and credit market downturn. Aggressive interest-rate cuts and the government's fiscal-stimulus program seem to have helped the U.S. economy avoid an outright recession. These policy measures may not, however, spare the economy a longer period of protracted weakness.
Against this, the European Central Bank, probably underestimating the severity of the global economic downturn and relying on the euro area's seemingly robust economic fundamentals, stepped on the brakes in response to the rise in headline inflation and inflation expectations. According to Deutsche Bank estimates, monetary conditions tightened by an amount equivalent to an interest rate increase of 1.5 percentage points between mid-2007 and mid-2008. About half of that tightening came from the trade-weighted appreciation of the euro, while the other half came from the increase of the ECB's policy rates and the widening of the money-market spreads over the latter.
Weighed down by the global housing-market downturn, the financial crisis, the commodity price shock and the tightening of monetary policy, the euro-area economy appears now to be succumbing to recession.
Assuming a timely correction of monetary policy and some help from fiscal policy in the countries suffering most from the housing slump, the recession may not be very deep. But past experience with housing-market downturns and financial crises suggests that the period of economic weakness could be rather protracted, and the eventual economic recovery fairly sluggish. As these events unfold, fears of inflation will be waning.
Down the road, the inhabitants of the euro zone may be wondering why their hangover after a party always seems so much greater than across the Atlantic even though the U.S. has had more from the punch. The secret of the U.S. resilience may well be its greater economic flexibility and more proactive use of macroeconomic policy.
Thursday, August 21 2008
The 0.2% drop in the euro zone's second-quarter GDP was not according to script. Only two months ago, European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet had expected the economy to continue to grow "at a moderate rate." Now, with the latest business and consumer confidence indicators suggesting also a weak third quarter, the signs point to a recession.
Many Europeans are exasperated. How is it possible that the euro-area economy is feeling the pinch while the U.S. economy, where the financial crisis originated, seems to be getting away relatively lightly?
Well, the euro-area economy has been anything but an innocent bystander to the merry party going on across the Atlantic during recent years. Rather, it has actively joined in and is now suffering from a major hangover. But unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, the ECB has been withholding the aspirin.
It all started with the heavyweights of the emerging markets, notably China, India and Brazil, opening up to international trade. Combined with their pursuit of competitive exchange rates and their emphasis on sound government finances, this liberalization paved the way for rapid export growth.
The economic dividends of this development strategy quickly piled up: Previously unproductive Chinese peasants became efficient assembly-line workers; a new class of Indian "knowledge workers" was created; and Brazil used its vast natural resources more productively.
The emerging heavyweights' growth strategies, though, caused some headaches in the industrialized world. Here, cheap imported products and services were crowding out more costly domestic substitutes, depressing prices and wages, and causing job losses. Policy makers, with the Fed in the vanguard, fought back by stimulating demand through lower interest rates.
Easy money seemed a low-risk strategy in a world threatened by deflation. However, cutting the risk-free rate to record low levels had its side effects. Asset prices surged and, more importantly, speculation was encouraged. As predicted by post-Keynesian theories of financial instability, financial markets and business cycles fluctuated between expansion and contraction.
The first big cycle affected the equity markets, culminating in the dot-com bubble of 1999-2000 that was followed by a rerating of equities and deleveraging of the corporate sector. The second big cycle is now running its course in the housing markets and, thanks to the especially high degree of leverage associated with this asset class, in the credit markets. Moreover, a third, smaller cycle is playing itself out in the commodities markets.
The industrialized world's economic growth -- largely driven by monetary policy -- had its counterpart in explosive export-led growth in the emerging market economies. Despite huge swings in a few equity markets, the global financial instability didn't affect emerging market economies as much as industrialized countries, where the financial sector plays a bigger role in the economy
Rather, the expansion has run into supply bottlenecks -- created mainly by the low supply elasticity of primary commodities, where rising prices don't lead to more production -- and rising consumer goods inflation. Instead of exporting deflation, emerging-market economies have now become a source of inflation (mainly by boosting commodity prices), which is hitting industrial countries like a boomerang.
With the turn of the U.S. housing market, the associated subprime crisis, the full-blown global financial crisis, and the break-out of previously suppressed inflation, the credit-driven expansion has come to an end. Like a wave crashing ashore, it is creating significant economic turbulences.
The credit-driven expansion at the global level has had its mirror images within the euro area. Some countries, such as Spain, France and Ireland, also grew on the back of a credit-financed and housing market-driven consumption expansion, following the U.S. example. Others, most importantly Germany, supplied the goods demanded by consumers and investors in other euro-area countries and the rest of the world, playing a role akin to that of the emerging-market countries with large current-account surpluses. When the credit cycle turned down, the music also stopped for the euro area economy. But the reaction of policy makers was significantly different.
The Federal Reserve, under the leadership of Chairman Ben Bernanke, tolerated a rise of inflation on the back of higher commodity prices -- which it expected to be reversed once the commodity cycle turns down -- and focused on the eventually deflationary effects of the housing slump and credit market downturn. Aggressive interest-rate cuts and the government's fiscal-stimulus program seem to have helped the U.S. economy avoid an outright recession. These policy measures may not, however, spare the economy a longer period of protracted weakness.
Against this, the European Central Bank, probably underestimating the severity of the global economic downturn and relying on the euro area's seemingly robust economic fundamentals, stepped on the brakes in response to the rise in headline inflation and inflation expectations. According to Deutsche Bank estimates, monetary conditions tightened by an amount equivalent to an interest rate increase of 1.5 percentage points between mid-2007 and mid-2008. About half of that tightening came from the trade-weighted appreciation of the euro, while the other half came from the increase of the ECB's policy rates and the widening of the money-market spreads over the latter.
Weighed down by the global housing-market downturn, the financial crisis, the commodity price shock and the tightening of monetary policy, the euro-area economy appears now to be succumbing to recession.
Assuming a timely correction of monetary policy and some help from fiscal policy in the countries suffering most from the housing slump, the recession may not be very deep. But past experience with housing-market downturns and financial crises suggests that the period of economic weakness could be rather protracted, and the eventual economic recovery fairly sluggish. As these events unfold, fears of inflation will be waning.
Down the road, the inhabitants of the euro zone may be wondering why their hangover after a party always seems so much greater than across the Atlantic even though the U.S. has had more from the punch. The secret of the U.S. resilience may well be its greater economic flexibility and more proactive use of macroeconomic policy.
25 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal
John Hawkins
Friday, August 22, 2008
With yet more apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, you just might be a liberal if...
* You blame the oil companies for high gas prices, but believe in doing everything humanly possible to keep them from drilling for more oil.
* You'd have no problem with a Democratic President talking with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jung-Il without conditions, but would be very upset if he started seriously negotiating with Republicans over national security or energy issues.
* You don't see a conflict between "supporting the troops" and trying to insure that they lose the war that they're fighting.
* You think the solution to an underperforming economy is higher taxes, more regulations, and publicly attacking businesses, but don't understand how that relates to the phrase, "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
* You're surprised that people don't think you're patriotic just because you were photographed not holding your hand over your heart during the national anthem and made a big deal out of refusing to wear a flag pin.
* You tell everyone who'll listen that Bush is "worse than Hitler" and that Republicans are fascists, but you never stop to consider that if that were true, you'd be dead or in a gulag already.
* You think Christmas songs at school plays shouldn't be allowed because they might offend people who don't believe, but don't understand what the problem is supposed to be with government funded "art" that defiles Christianity.
* Your idea of "reparations for slavery" is white people who have never owned slaves giving money to black people who were never slaves, more than a hundred years after slavery ended.
* You "assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, (you're) against it." -- Ann Coulter
* You think celebrities are just exercising their right to free speech when they criticize conservatives, but believe that the celebs are having their First Amendment rights abridged if anyone criticizes them for their comments.
* You called George Bush, "George Herbert Walker Bush," and George Allen, "George Felix Allen," but think someone referring to Barack Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" is a racist.
* You think we should give condoms to thirteen year-olds because "they're going to do it anyway," but feel that we can get rid of every gun held by criminals in the U.S. simply by making them illegal.
* You think Anita Hill was telling the truth about Clarence Thomas, but Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Dolly Kyle Browning, Sally Perdue, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick -- among many others -- are all lying about the Clintons.
* You "are willing to do whatever it takes to defend the American public from terrorists...as long as the French and Germans say it's OK."
* You continually claim that we don't do enough for the poor, but you want to add 12-20 million more of them to the ranks by giving illegal aliens American citizenship.
* You blame "society" for creating the conditions that turn people into criminals, but you don't think that gives "society" even more of a moral obligation to lock those criminals away so that they won't hurt innocent people.
* There's a conflict between America and any other country, over just about any topic, and you're more likely to side with the other nation than your own.
* You believe that fanatical Muslims who want to fly planes into our skyscrapers aren't a serious threat to the U.S., but Christians are.
* You think we can improve our health care system by putting the same government that brought us FEMA, ICE, Airport Security, and the IRS in charge of it.
* You believe that conservative criticism of Barack Obama's abilities is primarily driven by racism, but actual race-based criticism leveled at Clarence Thomas, Michelle Malkin, and Condi Rice by liberals obviously has nothing to do with race.
* You live in a great and free nation like America and can use phrases like "audacity of hope" or "speaking the truth to power" without the slightest hint of irony.
* You say, "Why do they hate us?" when America is attacked and "we're just furthering the cycle of violence" when we retaliate.
* You generally mean "threatening to the interests of the Democratic Party" or "Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton needs some more money" when you use the word "racist."
* Your first thought after hearing that someone who publicly criticized murderers actually murdered someone himself is, "What a hypocrite!"
* You tell anyone who'll listen that our elections are fraudulent and then you fight tooth and nail to prevent states from requiring a photo ID to vote.
Friday, August 22, 2008
With yet more apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, you just might be a liberal if...
* You blame the oil companies for high gas prices, but believe in doing everything humanly possible to keep them from drilling for more oil.
* You'd have no problem with a Democratic President talking with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jung-Il without conditions, but would be very upset if he started seriously negotiating with Republicans over national security or energy issues.
* You don't see a conflict between "supporting the troops" and trying to insure that they lose the war that they're fighting.
* You think the solution to an underperforming economy is higher taxes, more regulations, and publicly attacking businesses, but don't understand how that relates to the phrase, "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
* You're surprised that people don't think you're patriotic just because you were photographed not holding your hand over your heart during the national anthem and made a big deal out of refusing to wear a flag pin.
* You tell everyone who'll listen that Bush is "worse than Hitler" and that Republicans are fascists, but you never stop to consider that if that were true, you'd be dead or in a gulag already.
* You think Christmas songs at school plays shouldn't be allowed because they might offend people who don't believe, but don't understand what the problem is supposed to be with government funded "art" that defiles Christianity.
* Your idea of "reparations for slavery" is white people who have never owned slaves giving money to black people who were never slaves, more than a hundred years after slavery ended.
* You "assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, (you're) against it." -- Ann Coulter
* You think celebrities are just exercising their right to free speech when they criticize conservatives, but believe that the celebs are having their First Amendment rights abridged if anyone criticizes them for their comments.
* You called George Bush, "George Herbert Walker Bush," and George Allen, "George Felix Allen," but think someone referring to Barack Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" is a racist.
* You think we should give condoms to thirteen year-olds because "they're going to do it anyway," but feel that we can get rid of every gun held by criminals in the U.S. simply by making them illegal.
* You think Anita Hill was telling the truth about Clarence Thomas, but Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, Dolly Kyle Browning, Sally Perdue, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick -- among many others -- are all lying about the Clintons.
* You "are willing to do whatever it takes to defend the American public from terrorists...as long as the French and Germans say it's OK."
* You continually claim that we don't do enough for the poor, but you want to add 12-20 million more of them to the ranks by giving illegal aliens American citizenship.
* You blame "society" for creating the conditions that turn people into criminals, but you don't think that gives "society" even more of a moral obligation to lock those criminals away so that they won't hurt innocent people.
* There's a conflict between America and any other country, over just about any topic, and you're more likely to side with the other nation than your own.
* You believe that fanatical Muslims who want to fly planes into our skyscrapers aren't a serious threat to the U.S., but Christians are.
* You think we can improve our health care system by putting the same government that brought us FEMA, ICE, Airport Security, and the IRS in charge of it.
* You believe that conservative criticism of Barack Obama's abilities is primarily driven by racism, but actual race-based criticism leveled at Clarence Thomas, Michelle Malkin, and Condi Rice by liberals obviously has nothing to do with race.
* You live in a great and free nation like America and can use phrases like "audacity of hope" or "speaking the truth to power" without the slightest hint of irony.
* You say, "Why do they hate us?" when America is attacked and "we're just furthering the cycle of violence" when we retaliate.
* You generally mean "threatening to the interests of the Democratic Party" or "Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton needs some more money" when you use the word "racist."
* Your first thought after hearing that someone who publicly criticized murderers actually murdered someone himself is, "What a hypocrite!"
* You tell anyone who'll listen that our elections are fraudulent and then you fight tooth and nail to prevent states from requiring a photo ID to vote.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Mini-Vacation
C.A.A. will be on a mini-vacation for the next three weeks. Updates will still come, but they will be sporadic. Stay tuned.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Basra and the Brits
Wall Street Journal
Thursday, August 14, 2008
A controversy has broken out in London over Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the honor of Britain's military, and Iraq. It's a reminder of the road America could have taken before the surge made victory possible -- and a warning to politicians who are slaves to public opinion in war.
The story starts with this spring's military offensive by the Iraqi government to oust the Shiite militias from the southern city of Basra. The British were given coalition control in the south starting in 2003. Yet when the Iraqi military ran into trouble at the start of their operation this year, the 4,100 Brits remained in their garrison at the airport outside the city. The Iraqis had to call in the Americans from the north for air cover and other support to help defeat radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. It was the first time the U.S. had deployed to the British-controlled region of Iraq in five years. The operation turned into a major success, with the Mahdi Army routed and the Iraq government in control.
But the British failure to act was an embarrassment, even a humiliation, and explanations have begun to emerge. All point to a failure of political leadership. It turns out that last September the British had struck a deal with Mr. Sadr, essentially ceding him control over Basra and releasing some 120 militia regulars from custody.
In exchange, the Mahdi Army let U.K. troops beat a retreat from their base inside Basra to the airport unmolested. The Times of London reports that under the deal no soldier could set foot back in the city without express permission from Defense Minister Des Browne. Reports from Iraq add that the British performance has led to significant cooling of relations between the U.S. and British military forces in Iraq.
The Brown government implicitly acknowledges the deal with Mr. Sadr -- albeit without apologizing to the people of Basra who were terrorized for half a year by the Mahdi Army. However, Whitehall rejects that any such "accommodation" prevented British participation in the first days of the battle of Basra. It says the Brits lacked the proper equipment to assist the Iraqis. Whether that's true or not, the messages that Mr. Brown had been sending from the day he became Prime Minister were clear enough. He wanted British soldiers far removed from any fighting, and the British officer corps heeded his wishes.
In a sad irony, the British disgrace in Basra has become another blot against Mr. Brown's leadership at home. Mr. Brown was finally able to oust Tony Blair as Labour Party leader and Prime Minister in part because the British public was tired of Iraq and Mr. Brown promised a withdrawal. As America pushed ahead with the military surge in 2007, Britain went in the opposite direction. Last September, Mr. Brown ordered the British contingent in southern Iraq drawn down quickly. In the new Prime Minister's sights was victory in British elections, even if it meant a lack of victory in Iraq.
In other words, Mr. Brown chose to pursue precisely the path that most of the American political establishment urged on President Bush at the same time. Mr. Bush resisted the James Baker-Lee Hamilton Iraq Study Group path to retreat, and both Iraq and the American strategic position in the Middle East are far better for it. Mr. Brown took the path of least political resistance, yet now finds himself under criticism for having allowed the proud British military to fail in its duty. Barely 14 months in office, Mr. Brown is struggling to hold on as PM long enough to even contest the next election in 2010.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
A controversy has broken out in London over Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the honor of Britain's military, and Iraq. It's a reminder of the road America could have taken before the surge made victory possible -- and a warning to politicians who are slaves to public opinion in war.
The story starts with this spring's military offensive by the Iraqi government to oust the Shiite militias from the southern city of Basra. The British were given coalition control in the south starting in 2003. Yet when the Iraqi military ran into trouble at the start of their operation this year, the 4,100 Brits remained in their garrison at the airport outside the city. The Iraqis had to call in the Americans from the north for air cover and other support to help defeat radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. It was the first time the U.S. had deployed to the British-controlled region of Iraq in five years. The operation turned into a major success, with the Mahdi Army routed and the Iraq government in control.
But the British failure to act was an embarrassment, even a humiliation, and explanations have begun to emerge. All point to a failure of political leadership. It turns out that last September the British had struck a deal with Mr. Sadr, essentially ceding him control over Basra and releasing some 120 militia regulars from custody.
In exchange, the Mahdi Army let U.K. troops beat a retreat from their base inside Basra to the airport unmolested. The Times of London reports that under the deal no soldier could set foot back in the city without express permission from Defense Minister Des Browne. Reports from Iraq add that the British performance has led to significant cooling of relations between the U.S. and British military forces in Iraq.
The Brown government implicitly acknowledges the deal with Mr. Sadr -- albeit without apologizing to the people of Basra who were terrorized for half a year by the Mahdi Army. However, Whitehall rejects that any such "accommodation" prevented British participation in the first days of the battle of Basra. It says the Brits lacked the proper equipment to assist the Iraqis. Whether that's true or not, the messages that Mr. Brown had been sending from the day he became Prime Minister were clear enough. He wanted British soldiers far removed from any fighting, and the British officer corps heeded his wishes.
In a sad irony, the British disgrace in Basra has become another blot against Mr. Brown's leadership at home. Mr. Brown was finally able to oust Tony Blair as Labour Party leader and Prime Minister in part because the British public was tired of Iraq and Mr. Brown promised a withdrawal. As America pushed ahead with the military surge in 2007, Britain went in the opposite direction. Last September, Mr. Brown ordered the British contingent in southern Iraq drawn down quickly. In the new Prime Minister's sights was victory in British elections, even if it meant a lack of victory in Iraq.
In other words, Mr. Brown chose to pursue precisely the path that most of the American political establishment urged on President Bush at the same time. Mr. Bush resisted the James Baker-Lee Hamilton Iraq Study Group path to retreat, and both Iraq and the American strategic position in the Middle East are far better for it. Mr. Brown took the path of least political resistance, yet now finds himself under criticism for having allowed the proud British military to fail in its duty. Barely 14 months in office, Mr. Brown is struggling to hold on as PM long enough to even contest the next election in 2010.
Brave Old World
Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Russia invades Georgia. China jails dissidents. China and India pollute at levels previously unimaginable. Gulf monarchies make trillions from jacked-up oil prices. Islamic terrorists keep car bombing. Meanwhile, Europe offers moral lectures, while Japan and South Korea shrug and watch -- all in a globalized world that tunes into the Olympics each night from Beijing.
"Citizens of the world" were supposed to share, in relative harmony, our new "Planet Earth," which was to have followed from an interconnected system of free trade, instantaneous electronic communications, civilized diplomacy and shared consumer capitalism.
But was that ever quite true?
In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:
First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.
Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Muammar al-Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the Taliban.
Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world -- like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.
But there have been a number of indications recently that globalization may soon lose its American parent, who is tiring, both materially and psychologically.
The United States may be the most free, stable and meritocratic nation in the world, but its resources and patience are not unlimited. Currently, it pays more than a half trillion dollars per year to import $115-a-barrel oil that is often pumped at a cost of about $5.
The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans hold trillions of dollars in U.S. bonds -- the result of massive trade deficits. The American dollar is at historic lows. We are piling up staggering national debt. Over 12 million live here illegally and freely transfer more than $50 billion annually to Mexico and Latin America.
Our military, after deposing Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam, is tired. And Americans are increasingly becoming more sensitive to the cheap criticism of global moralists.
But as the United States turns ever so slightly inward, the new globalized world will revert to a far poorer -- and more dangerous -- place.
Liberals like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speak out against new free trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More and more Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration -- and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Mexico and Latin America are threatened by any change in America's immigration attitude.
Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don’t enjoy Miranda rights at Guantanamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia's democracy and bombing its cities.
Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans’ carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants.
It has been chic to chant "No blood for oil" about Iraq's petroleum -- petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China's sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur.
Due to climbing prices and high government taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it is either untaxed or subsidized.
So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain -- and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.
Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s -- with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.
If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause
If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won't listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.
Brace yourself -- we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Russia invades Georgia. China jails dissidents. China and India pollute at levels previously unimaginable. Gulf monarchies make trillions from jacked-up oil prices. Islamic terrorists keep car bombing. Meanwhile, Europe offers moral lectures, while Japan and South Korea shrug and watch -- all in a globalized world that tunes into the Olympics each night from Beijing.
"Citizens of the world" were supposed to share, in relative harmony, our new "Planet Earth," which was to have followed from an interconnected system of free trade, instantaneous electronic communications, civilized diplomacy and shared consumer capitalism.
But was that ever quite true?
In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:
First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.
Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Muammar al-Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the Taliban.
Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world -- like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.
But there have been a number of indications recently that globalization may soon lose its American parent, who is tiring, both materially and psychologically.
The United States may be the most free, stable and meritocratic nation in the world, but its resources and patience are not unlimited. Currently, it pays more than a half trillion dollars per year to import $115-a-barrel oil that is often pumped at a cost of about $5.
The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans hold trillions of dollars in U.S. bonds -- the result of massive trade deficits. The American dollar is at historic lows. We are piling up staggering national debt. Over 12 million live here illegally and freely transfer more than $50 billion annually to Mexico and Latin America.
Our military, after deposing Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam, is tired. And Americans are increasingly becoming more sensitive to the cheap criticism of global moralists.
But as the United States turns ever so slightly inward, the new globalized world will revert to a far poorer -- and more dangerous -- place.
Liberals like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speak out against new free trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More and more Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration -- and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Mexico and Latin America are threatened by any change in America's immigration attitude.
Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don’t enjoy Miranda rights at Guantanamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia's democracy and bombing its cities.
Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans’ carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants.
It has been chic to chant "No blood for oil" about Iraq's petroleum -- petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China's sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur.
Due to climbing prices and high government taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it is either untaxed or subsidized.
So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain -- and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.
Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s -- with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.
If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause
If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won't listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.
Brace yourself -- we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.
The Great Depression Hoax
By Todd G. Buchholz
Friday, August 15, 2008
I slapped the side of my television in April when economist Joe Stiglitz called this the worst recession "since the Great Depression." But now the economy is not only hurting homeowners; it's apparently harming parakeets, too! An AP item reports that pet owners are abandoning their furry and feathery friends to animal shelters because they can no longer afford to feed them. Never mind that GDP is puttering along in positive terrain. Headlines still scream that we're closing in on 1929, not 2009.
Are we a nation of whiners, as Phil Gramm put it a little while ago, getting himself kicked off John McCain's advisory team? No, the American public is not whining. One reason may be that consumers are swallowing $13 billion of pick-me-uppers like Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil. (A doctor friend who volunteered at a sleepaway camp said that, every morning, 20% of the kids lined up for their psychomeds.) More likely, though, Americans are just leaving the whining to pundits and trend reporters. The fellow who filed the pet story did not bother to point out that, in this alleged new Great Depression, the Pet Products Manufacturers Association says that Americans have spent 5% more this year on their pooches and pussies than last year.
Where are the Hoovervilles camped out under the Washington Monument? Where are the soup lines? Willie Nelson is still on tour, beseeching us to save the family farm. But it must be tougher for him to gin up support when the typical American farm, thanks in part to ever expanding ethanol subsidies, has see its annual income surge 50% past its 10-year average. Apparently Willie is traveling on a biodiesel, soybean-fed bus. So now we know at least what Willie's bus is smoking.
The fact is that most Americans get up in the morning to work hard, feed their families and pay for soccer uniforms and maybe a vacation, if they can stand the security lines at the airport. Most Americans don't let whining get in the way of work. That separates us from the French, who would join a picket line to protest against picket lines. The problem with whining, as with socialism, is that it requires too many evenings. And forget about the organized whining that we know as social activism. That requires too many meetings and too many covered-dish dinners too. I'm still not sure what Barack Obama accomplished as a professional "community organizer." I doubt he was another Martin Luther King, but I'm pretty certain he carried a lot of macaroni salad.
Sure, we gripe about higher food prices and shaky home prices, but we are still living "La Vida Latte," lining up every morning before a barista and otherwise indulging in the imperatives of the good life. Yes, the share price of Starbucks has sunk of late, but Americans spent more, not less, at Starbucks last year than the year before. And if you add premium coffee sales at McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts, the growth rate of this liquid luxury has soared. I should point out that the price of a Starbucks latte is about $1,200 a barrel. Makes that SUV fill-up a little easier to swallow, doesn't it?
Meanwhile, Prius cars are flying off the Toyota lots, even though they cost $3,700 more than a similarly sized gasoline-fired Toyota and it takes 3.5 years to pay back the investment in fuel savings. The ageless Paul McCartney's spanking new Lexus LS600h will take him 102 years. Rock on, Sir Paul.
Of course, these are high-end luxury items, the kinds you see at the Kennedy compound when you look at it from Martha's Vineyard, hoping never to see a windmill blocking your view. But even the situation for middle-class Americans is not all that dire. In July the jobless rate among college graduates was just 2.4%, drifting up from 2.1% in March. That is miles away from the 1981 recession and, of course, you'd need scientific notation to compare it to the Great Depression, no matter what the Obama campaign says. The job market, while weak, has not collapsed.
Each Thursday morning I look at weekly jobless claims -- how many people trudged up to state unemployment offices, pink slips in hand. That number has hovered under 500,000. To match up to the level of 1981-82 layoffs, it would have to explode to 1.2 million. It won't. Moreover, a big proportion of the layoffs are coming among 16-24 year olds, who are not yet supporting a household.
So, no, we are not whining -- in part because we do not have much to whine about, whatever the hysterical headlines might say. But don't pop champagne corks yet. For some, it still feels lousy out there. But lousy is not a technical synonym for recession. On the lower end of the income spectrum, we have deep problems, both economic and sociological.
Back in the '60s a high-school graduate could still make good money, especially if he learned a trade. That's because almost every other adolescent in the world lacked a high-school degree. We were about the only country that educated teenagers. But now the rest of the world has caught up, and Americans are undereducated or ill-educated. High schools don't teach what they used to, and so students who don't go to college are left without the skills necessary to compete in a global economy. Forget the Beijing Olympics. In math-science competitions, the U.S. is the Jamaican bobsled team of education.
Most Americans who suffer layoffs do not deserve blame. It is more likely that their incompetent, often overpaid, bosses do. Still, no president, Democrat or Republican, can create prosperity for those who decide to forgo even a basic education. Our problem is not whining. It is persuading young people that, with baby boomers retiring, entitlement programs bulging and the world economy growing ever more competitive, now's the time to roll up the sleeves for something other than tattoos.
As for hysterical journalists, I'm waiting for a reporter to tell us that pet owners can't even afford the paper to line their animals' cages. That would be a shame, because it's about all those papers are good for.
Friday, August 15, 2008
I slapped the side of my television in April when economist Joe Stiglitz called this the worst recession "since the Great Depression." But now the economy is not only hurting homeowners; it's apparently harming parakeets, too! An AP item reports that pet owners are abandoning their furry and feathery friends to animal shelters because they can no longer afford to feed them. Never mind that GDP is puttering along in positive terrain. Headlines still scream that we're closing in on 1929, not 2009.
Are we a nation of whiners, as Phil Gramm put it a little while ago, getting himself kicked off John McCain's advisory team? No, the American public is not whining. One reason may be that consumers are swallowing $13 billion of pick-me-uppers like Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil. (A doctor friend who volunteered at a sleepaway camp said that, every morning, 20% of the kids lined up for their psychomeds.) More likely, though, Americans are just leaving the whining to pundits and trend reporters. The fellow who filed the pet story did not bother to point out that, in this alleged new Great Depression, the Pet Products Manufacturers Association says that Americans have spent 5% more this year on their pooches and pussies than last year.
Where are the Hoovervilles camped out under the Washington Monument? Where are the soup lines? Willie Nelson is still on tour, beseeching us to save the family farm. But it must be tougher for him to gin up support when the typical American farm, thanks in part to ever expanding ethanol subsidies, has see its annual income surge 50% past its 10-year average. Apparently Willie is traveling on a biodiesel, soybean-fed bus. So now we know at least what Willie's bus is smoking.
The fact is that most Americans get up in the morning to work hard, feed their families and pay for soccer uniforms and maybe a vacation, if they can stand the security lines at the airport. Most Americans don't let whining get in the way of work. That separates us from the French, who would join a picket line to protest against picket lines. The problem with whining, as with socialism, is that it requires too many evenings. And forget about the organized whining that we know as social activism. That requires too many meetings and too many covered-dish dinners too. I'm still not sure what Barack Obama accomplished as a professional "community organizer." I doubt he was another Martin Luther King, but I'm pretty certain he carried a lot of macaroni salad.
Sure, we gripe about higher food prices and shaky home prices, but we are still living "La Vida Latte," lining up every morning before a barista and otherwise indulging in the imperatives of the good life. Yes, the share price of Starbucks has sunk of late, but Americans spent more, not less, at Starbucks last year than the year before. And if you add premium coffee sales at McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts, the growth rate of this liquid luxury has soared. I should point out that the price of a Starbucks latte is about $1,200 a barrel. Makes that SUV fill-up a little easier to swallow, doesn't it?
Meanwhile, Prius cars are flying off the Toyota lots, even though they cost $3,700 more than a similarly sized gasoline-fired Toyota and it takes 3.5 years to pay back the investment in fuel savings. The ageless Paul McCartney's spanking new Lexus LS600h will take him 102 years. Rock on, Sir Paul.
Of course, these are high-end luxury items, the kinds you see at the Kennedy compound when you look at it from Martha's Vineyard, hoping never to see a windmill blocking your view. But even the situation for middle-class Americans is not all that dire. In July the jobless rate among college graduates was just 2.4%, drifting up from 2.1% in March. That is miles away from the 1981 recession and, of course, you'd need scientific notation to compare it to the Great Depression, no matter what the Obama campaign says. The job market, while weak, has not collapsed.
Each Thursday morning I look at weekly jobless claims -- how many people trudged up to state unemployment offices, pink slips in hand. That number has hovered under 500,000. To match up to the level of 1981-82 layoffs, it would have to explode to 1.2 million. It won't. Moreover, a big proportion of the layoffs are coming among 16-24 year olds, who are not yet supporting a household.
So, no, we are not whining -- in part because we do not have much to whine about, whatever the hysterical headlines might say. But don't pop champagne corks yet. For some, it still feels lousy out there. But lousy is not a technical synonym for recession. On the lower end of the income spectrum, we have deep problems, both economic and sociological.
Back in the '60s a high-school graduate could still make good money, especially if he learned a trade. That's because almost every other adolescent in the world lacked a high-school degree. We were about the only country that educated teenagers. But now the rest of the world has caught up, and Americans are undereducated or ill-educated. High schools don't teach what they used to, and so students who don't go to college are left without the skills necessary to compete in a global economy. Forget the Beijing Olympics. In math-science competitions, the U.S. is the Jamaican bobsled team of education.
Most Americans who suffer layoffs do not deserve blame. It is more likely that their incompetent, often overpaid, bosses do. Still, no president, Democrat or Republican, can create prosperity for those who decide to forgo even a basic education. Our problem is not whining. It is persuading young people that, with baby boomers retiring, entitlement programs bulging and the world economy growing ever more competitive, now's the time to roll up the sleeves for something other than tattoos.
As for hysterical journalists, I'm waiting for a reporter to tell us that pet owners can't even afford the paper to line their animals' cages. That would be a shame, because it's about all those papers are good for.
About That Iraq 'Surplus'
Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Among the antiwar faithful, every improvement in Iraq is still bad news, even if -- or especially if -- it's good news for the U.S. So it is with the political eruption over Iraq's budget surplus.
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Iraqi government generated some $96 billion in revenues since 2005, when Baghdad started managing its own budget, with about 94% coming from crude oil exports. Now Democrats and a few Republicans are complaining that Iraq is "pocketing huge profits" without spending enough on reconstruction. The GAO figures the surplus could run as high as $50 billion this year, though the real figure will be far lower once parliament resolves ongoing budget negotiations.
Of course it is one more sign of progress that Iraq is immersed in ordinary budget disputes like every other democracy, and no one argues that these funds won't be spent in the future. The real news is that Iraq was unable to spend the money it budgeted during the war's darkest periods, largely due to violence, sectarian strife and corruption. Since General David Petraeus's surge, security has improved sufficiently for Iraq to finance its own development.
Before the war, Iraq's oil revenues, derived from the world's third largest reserves, were being laundered through the Oil for Food program to sponsor Saddam Hussein's murderous regime and buy political patrons in the West. Now they'll pay for a better life for Iraqi citizens. If this is the worst news the antiwar movement can highlight, victory must be at hand.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Among the antiwar faithful, every improvement in Iraq is still bad news, even if -- or especially if -- it's good news for the U.S. So it is with the political eruption over Iraq's budget surplus.
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Iraqi government generated some $96 billion in revenues since 2005, when Baghdad started managing its own budget, with about 94% coming from crude oil exports. Now Democrats and a few Republicans are complaining that Iraq is "pocketing huge profits" without spending enough on reconstruction. The GAO figures the surplus could run as high as $50 billion this year, though the real figure will be far lower once parliament resolves ongoing budget negotiations.
Of course it is one more sign of progress that Iraq is immersed in ordinary budget disputes like every other democracy, and no one argues that these funds won't be spent in the future. The real news is that Iraq was unable to spend the money it budgeted during the war's darkest periods, largely due to violence, sectarian strife and corruption. Since General David Petraeus's surge, security has improved sufficiently for Iraq to finance its own development.
Before the war, Iraq's oil revenues, derived from the world's third largest reserves, were being laundered through the Oil for Food program to sponsor Saddam Hussein's murderous regime and buy political patrons in the West. Now they'll pay for a better life for Iraqi citizens. If this is the worst news the antiwar movement can highlight, victory must be at hand.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Why I Am Not a Liberal
Dennis Prager
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The following is a list of beliefs that I hold. Nearly every one of them was a liberal position until the late 1960s. Not one of them is now.
Such a list is vitally important in order to clarify exactly what positions divide left from right, blue from red, liberal from conservative.
I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by.
I believe that the bigger government gets and the more powerful the state becomes, the greater the threat to individual liberty and the greater the likelihood that evil will ensue. In the 20th century, the powerful state, not religion, was the greatest purveyor of evil in the world.
I believe that the levels of taxation advocated by liberals render those taxes a veiled form of theft. "Give me more than half of your honestly earned money or you will be arrested" is legalized thievery.
I believe that government funding of those who can help themselves (e.g., the able-bodied who collect welfare) or who can be helped by non-governmental institutions (such as private charities, family, and friends) hurts them and hurts society.
I believe that the United States of America, from its inception, has been based on the Judeo-Christian value system, not secular Enlightenment values alone, and therefore the secularization of American society will lead to the collapse of America as a great country.
I believe that some murderers should be put death; that allowing all murderers to live does not elevate the value of human life, but mocks it, and that keeping all murderers alive trivializes the evil of murder.
I believe that the American military has done more to preserve and foster goodness and liberty on Earth than all the artists and professors in America put together.
I believe that lowering standards to admit minorities mocks the real achievements of members of those minorities.
I believe that when schools give teenagers condoms, it is understood by most teenagers as tacit approval of their engaging in sexual intercourse.
I believe that the assertions that manmade carbon emissions will lead to a global warming that will in turn bring on worldwide disaster are a function of hysteria, just as was the widespread liberal belief that heterosexual AIDS will ravage America.
I believe that marriage must remain what has been in every recorded civilization -- between the two sexes.
I believe that, whatever the reasons for entering Iraq, the American-led removal of Saddam Hussein from power will decrease the sum total of cruelty on Earth.
I believe that the trial lawyers associations and teachers unions, the greatest donors to the Democratic Party, have done great harm to American life -- far more than, let us say, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, the targets of liberal opprobrium.
I believe that nuclear power, clean coal, and drilling in a tiny and remote frozen part of Alaska and offshore -- along with exploration of other energy alternatives such as wind and solar power -- are immediately necessary.
I believe that school vouchers are more effective than increased spending on public schools in enabling many poorer Americans to give their children better educations.
I believe that while there are racists in America, America is no longer a racist society, and that blaming disproportionate rates of black violence and out-of-wedlock births on white racism is a lie and the greatest single impediment to African-American progress.
I believe that America, which accepts and assimilates foreigners better than any other country in the world, is the least racist, least xenophobic country in the world.
I believe the leftist takeover of the liberal arts departments in nearly every American university has been an intellectual and moral calamity.
I believe that a good man and a good marriage are more important to most women's happiness and personal fulfillment than a good career.
I believe that males and females are inherently different. For example, girls naturally prefer dolls and tea sets to trucks and toy guns -- if you give a girl trucks, she is likely to give them names and take care of them, and if you give a boy trucks, he is likely to crash them into one another.
I believe that when it comes to combating the greatest evils on Earth, such as the genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations has either been useless or an obstacle.
I believe that, generally speaking, Western Europe provides social and moral models to be avoided, not emulated.
I believe that America's children were positively affected by hearing a non-denominational prayer each morning in school, and adversely affected by the removal of all prayer from school.
I believe that liberal educators' removal of school uniforms and/or dress codes has had a terrible impact on students and their education.
I believe that bilingual education does not work, that for the sake of immigrant children and for the sake of the larger society, immersion in the language of the country, meaning English in America, is mandatory.
I believe that English should be declared the national language, and that ballots should not be printed in any language other than English. If one cannot understand English, one is probably not sufficiently knowledgeable to vote intelligently in an English-speaking country.
Finally, I believe that there are millions of Americans who share most of these beliefs who still call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and who therefore vote Democrat. They do so because they still identify liberalism with pre-1970 liberalism or because they are emotionally attached to the word "liberal."
I share that emotion. But one should vote based on values, not emotions.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The following is a list of beliefs that I hold. Nearly every one of them was a liberal position until the late 1960s. Not one of them is now.
Such a list is vitally important in order to clarify exactly what positions divide left from right, blue from red, liberal from conservative.
I believe in American exceptionalism, meaning that (a) America has done more than any international organization or institution, and more than any other country, to improve this world; and (b) that American values (specifically, the unique American blending of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values) form the finest value system any society has ever devised and lived by.
I believe that the bigger government gets and the more powerful the state becomes, the greater the threat to individual liberty and the greater the likelihood that evil will ensue. In the 20th century, the powerful state, not religion, was the greatest purveyor of evil in the world.
I believe that the levels of taxation advocated by liberals render those taxes a veiled form of theft. "Give me more than half of your honestly earned money or you will be arrested" is legalized thievery.
I believe that government funding of those who can help themselves (e.g., the able-bodied who collect welfare) or who can be helped by non-governmental institutions (such as private charities, family, and friends) hurts them and hurts society.
I believe that the United States of America, from its inception, has been based on the Judeo-Christian value system, not secular Enlightenment values alone, and therefore the secularization of American society will lead to the collapse of America as a great country.
I believe that some murderers should be put death; that allowing all murderers to live does not elevate the value of human life, but mocks it, and that keeping all murderers alive trivializes the evil of murder.
I believe that the American military has done more to preserve and foster goodness and liberty on Earth than all the artists and professors in America put together.
I believe that lowering standards to admit minorities mocks the real achievements of members of those minorities.
I believe that when schools give teenagers condoms, it is understood by most teenagers as tacit approval of their engaging in sexual intercourse.
I believe that the assertions that manmade carbon emissions will lead to a global warming that will in turn bring on worldwide disaster are a function of hysteria, just as was the widespread liberal belief that heterosexual AIDS will ravage America.
I believe that marriage must remain what has been in every recorded civilization -- between the two sexes.
I believe that, whatever the reasons for entering Iraq, the American-led removal of Saddam Hussein from power will decrease the sum total of cruelty on Earth.
I believe that the trial lawyers associations and teachers unions, the greatest donors to the Democratic Party, have done great harm to American life -- far more than, let us say, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, the targets of liberal opprobrium.
I believe that nuclear power, clean coal, and drilling in a tiny and remote frozen part of Alaska and offshore -- along with exploration of other energy alternatives such as wind and solar power -- are immediately necessary.
I believe that school vouchers are more effective than increased spending on public schools in enabling many poorer Americans to give their children better educations.
I believe that while there are racists in America, America is no longer a racist society, and that blaming disproportionate rates of black violence and out-of-wedlock births on white racism is a lie and the greatest single impediment to African-American progress.
I believe that America, which accepts and assimilates foreigners better than any other country in the world, is the least racist, least xenophobic country in the world.
I believe the leftist takeover of the liberal arts departments in nearly every American university has been an intellectual and moral calamity.
I believe that a good man and a good marriage are more important to most women's happiness and personal fulfillment than a good career.
I believe that males and females are inherently different. For example, girls naturally prefer dolls and tea sets to trucks and toy guns -- if you give a girl trucks, she is likely to give them names and take care of them, and if you give a boy trucks, he is likely to crash them into one another.
I believe that when it comes to combating the greatest evils on Earth, such as the genocide in Rwanda, the United Nations has either been useless or an obstacle.
I believe that, generally speaking, Western Europe provides social and moral models to be avoided, not emulated.
I believe that America's children were positively affected by hearing a non-denominational prayer each morning in school, and adversely affected by the removal of all prayer from school.
I believe that liberal educators' removal of school uniforms and/or dress codes has had a terrible impact on students and their education.
I believe that bilingual education does not work, that for the sake of immigrant children and for the sake of the larger society, immersion in the language of the country, meaning English in America, is mandatory.
I believe that English should be declared the national language, and that ballots should not be printed in any language other than English. If one cannot understand English, one is probably not sufficiently knowledgeable to vote intelligently in an English-speaking country.
Finally, I believe that there are millions of Americans who share most of these beliefs who still call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" and who therefore vote Democrat. They do so because they still identify liberalism with pre-1970 liberalism or because they are emotionally attached to the word "liberal."
I share that emotion. But one should vote based on values, not emotions.
Idiot Economics
David Strom
Monday, August 11, 2008
It has become popular for politicians to advocate going after oil companies for their seemingly outsized profits. Otherwise rational people turn red-faced with anger when they think about the tens of billions of dollars flowing into the coffers of “big oil.”
The most often talked about “solution” to—really punishment of—big oil’s big profits is the imposition of a “windfall profits” tax. Such a tax would set an arbitrary limit to what oil companies can make and then slap an extra tax on profits if they exceed that limit.
Now set aside the question of whether it makes sense for politicians to determine what profits companies should earn; a belief that politicians should be the arbiters of economic rewards seems to be a continually recurring idiocy that we will have to fight indefinitely.
Also set aside the fact that oil company profits are actually much more modest than the profits in other industries, including agriculture which has seen its profits recently skyrocket faster than oil companies have. Nobody is calling for confiscating farmers’ profits, which are bolstered substantially by agriculture subsidies and mandates that would make oil company executives blush if they we offered similar treatment.
Instead, let’s just examine the immediate and discernable results from the imposition of such a tax. What, exactly, would happen in the oil markets if Washington decided to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies?
Where is the big money in the oil business? The profit margin on refining oil into gasoline and other oil products has actually narrowed by almost 50%--because the high price of oil and a decline in gasoline consumption has made refining less profitable. Ditto for gas stations, which have seen their profit margins decline as the price of gas went up.
The fact is that the spike in oil companies’ profits comes from selling the oil that they own and pump out of the ground. And increasing taxes on pumping oil will do one thing and one thing only: make it less attractive to pump that oil. A windfall profits tax would reduce the oil production of American companies(as it did last time we imposed a windfall profits tax on oil)--and guess who would pick up the slack?
Only a small fraction of the oil on the market is actually owned by “big oil.” Most of the rest—about 90%--is actually in the hands of governments such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. And if you haven’t thought of it, none of those governments or non-American oil producers would have to pay that “windfall profits” tax.
So a windfall profits tax would guarantee one thing: Americans would be put in the unenviable position of sending even more of their hard-earned dollars overseas to mostly unfriendly governments to buy oil that could have been produced by American companies.
Driving American production down would also mean that the price of oil would go up. A windfall profits tax, in other words, would make for a nice windfall profit for all those unfriendly governments that currently own most of the market for oil anyway.
As you can see, even if you think that a “windfall profits” tax would somehow be fair or is economically justifiable, imposing it would still be profoundly stupid. All we would be doing is handing over more money and more power to foreigners who don’t like us very much.
Monday, August 11, 2008
It has become popular for politicians to advocate going after oil companies for their seemingly outsized profits. Otherwise rational people turn red-faced with anger when they think about the tens of billions of dollars flowing into the coffers of “big oil.”
The most often talked about “solution” to—really punishment of—big oil’s big profits is the imposition of a “windfall profits” tax. Such a tax would set an arbitrary limit to what oil companies can make and then slap an extra tax on profits if they exceed that limit.
Now set aside the question of whether it makes sense for politicians to determine what profits companies should earn; a belief that politicians should be the arbiters of economic rewards seems to be a continually recurring idiocy that we will have to fight indefinitely.
Also set aside the fact that oil company profits are actually much more modest than the profits in other industries, including agriculture which has seen its profits recently skyrocket faster than oil companies have. Nobody is calling for confiscating farmers’ profits, which are bolstered substantially by agriculture subsidies and mandates that would make oil company executives blush if they we offered similar treatment.
Instead, let’s just examine the immediate and discernable results from the imposition of such a tax. What, exactly, would happen in the oil markets if Washington decided to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies?
Where is the big money in the oil business? The profit margin on refining oil into gasoline and other oil products has actually narrowed by almost 50%--because the high price of oil and a decline in gasoline consumption has made refining less profitable. Ditto for gas stations, which have seen their profit margins decline as the price of gas went up.
The fact is that the spike in oil companies’ profits comes from selling the oil that they own and pump out of the ground. And increasing taxes on pumping oil will do one thing and one thing only: make it less attractive to pump that oil. A windfall profits tax would reduce the oil production of American companies(as it did last time we imposed a windfall profits tax on oil)--and guess who would pick up the slack?
Only a small fraction of the oil on the market is actually owned by “big oil.” Most of the rest—about 90%--is actually in the hands of governments such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. And if you haven’t thought of it, none of those governments or non-American oil producers would have to pay that “windfall profits” tax.
So a windfall profits tax would guarantee one thing: Americans would be put in the unenviable position of sending even more of their hard-earned dollars overseas to mostly unfriendly governments to buy oil that could have been produced by American companies.
Driving American production down would also mean that the price of oil would go up. A windfall profits tax, in other words, would make for a nice windfall profit for all those unfriendly governments that currently own most of the market for oil anyway.
As you can see, even if you think that a “windfall profits” tax would somehow be fair or is economically justifiable, imposing it would still be profoundly stupid. All we would be doing is handing over more money and more power to foreigners who don’t like us very much.
Texas Is Fed Up With Corn Ethanol
By Rick Perry
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
At what price will corn be so expensive that the federal government will decide that it is time to stop driving up the price of food?
Three years ago, Congress imposed a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandate that has forced the gasoline industry to mix massive amounts of corn-based ethanol into the nation's fuel supply. In 2007, Congress nearly doubled that mandate to require nine billion gallons of ethanol be blended into gas in 2008 and even more in 2009.
But, as a safety valve, Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to waive the new mandates if they turn out to have unforeseen, negative consequences.
As we can see now, the diversion of our corn supply from grocery stores to gasoline pumps has caused the price of corn to spiral out of control. Corn prices were once driven by market forces. Today they are artificially driven up by a government mandate. In 2004, before the mandates were imposed, the cost of corn hovered around $2 per bushel. Now it is close to $8 per bushel.
This is driving up the cost of staple food items at the grocery store. And it is also driving up the price of corn-based feed, devastating the livestock industry to the point that Texas cattle feeders have been operating in the red since 2007.
Even our largest agriculture companies are taking a hit. Pilgrim's Pride and Smithfield both posted huge losses this past year. Tyson's bonds were downgraded. And New Way Pork, Texas's largest independent pork producer, has been driven out of business by feed costs that have risen 50% since 2004.
Some of our large companies may be able to weather this storm, but the future is uncertain for small-to-midsize companies. And two thirds of our state's nearly 150,000 cattle producers run fewer than 50 head of cattle.
I first raised my concern about this issue in July 2007 when I rolled out Texas's bioenergy strategy, noting that we do not want to be forced to choose between fueling our cars and feeding our families. Later that year, Congress increased the RFS mandate.
Since then, higher costs have chipped away at our food budgets and sent livestock producers deep into debt. In April, I decided something had to be done.
I asked the EPA to cut the grain-based ethanol mandate in half for one year. In response, the agency opened a comment period and within 30 days received more than 15,000 comments from across the country, most of which apparently supported my request. The outpouring of support for this waiver was so overwhelming that the EPA delayed its decision announcement by almost two weeks after the 30-day comment period had elapsed.
Last Thursday, the EPA announced it was denying my request. Why? Because the agency's agriculture and energy economists said the mandates are not causing sufficient damage to warrant action. This not only goes against common sense, but runs counter to the experience of Americans at the grocery checkout counter.
Denying Texas's request is a mistake that will continue to force families to bear a heavier financial burden to put food on the table than necessary and harm the livestock industry.
Supporters of the ethanol mandate have their hearts in the right place if they want to diversify this nation's fuel supply. But artificially propping up an industry to the detriment of the vast majority of Americans is bad policy. And that's what this mandate does.
There are many sources of renewable energy in addition to corn-based ethanol. It is time America took steps to develop the technology to make use of these sources.
Texas is leading the nation in this movement. We are a top contributor to the nation's domestic fuel supply, and a leader in wind, biofuel and solar energy production. We harness the benefits of clean and efficient nuclear power, and are investing considerable resources in developing nonfood bioenergy such as algae, switchgrass, jatropha and camelina—all of which have minimal impact on food production and the environment. The U.S. would be wise to follow Texas's lead.
The EPA needs to stop using bureaucratic definitions of what constitutes "severe economic harm" and take a look at reality. American families are struggling to put food on the table because of rising food prices. Without a doubt, the destruction of the Texas livestock industry—the nation's largest beef producer—constitutes severe harm to our country's economy. Forcing Texas ranchers to close their doors because they can no longer afford to feed their livestock takes food off the table for millions of Americans. If that's not "severe economic damage," what is?
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
At what price will corn be so expensive that the federal government will decide that it is time to stop driving up the price of food?
Three years ago, Congress imposed a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandate that has forced the gasoline industry to mix massive amounts of corn-based ethanol into the nation's fuel supply. In 2007, Congress nearly doubled that mandate to require nine billion gallons of ethanol be blended into gas in 2008 and even more in 2009.
But, as a safety valve, Congress gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to waive the new mandates if they turn out to have unforeseen, negative consequences.
As we can see now, the diversion of our corn supply from grocery stores to gasoline pumps has caused the price of corn to spiral out of control. Corn prices were once driven by market forces. Today they are artificially driven up by a government mandate. In 2004, before the mandates were imposed, the cost of corn hovered around $2 per bushel. Now it is close to $8 per bushel.
This is driving up the cost of staple food items at the grocery store. And it is also driving up the price of corn-based feed, devastating the livestock industry to the point that Texas cattle feeders have been operating in the red since 2007.
Even our largest agriculture companies are taking a hit. Pilgrim's Pride and Smithfield both posted huge losses this past year. Tyson's bonds were downgraded. And New Way Pork, Texas's largest independent pork producer, has been driven out of business by feed costs that have risen 50% since 2004.
Some of our large companies may be able to weather this storm, but the future is uncertain for small-to-midsize companies. And two thirds of our state's nearly 150,000 cattle producers run fewer than 50 head of cattle.
I first raised my concern about this issue in July 2007 when I rolled out Texas's bioenergy strategy, noting that we do not want to be forced to choose between fueling our cars and feeding our families. Later that year, Congress increased the RFS mandate.
Since then, higher costs have chipped away at our food budgets and sent livestock producers deep into debt. In April, I decided something had to be done.
I asked the EPA to cut the grain-based ethanol mandate in half for one year. In response, the agency opened a comment period and within 30 days received more than 15,000 comments from across the country, most of which apparently supported my request. The outpouring of support for this waiver was so overwhelming that the EPA delayed its decision announcement by almost two weeks after the 30-day comment period had elapsed.
Last Thursday, the EPA announced it was denying my request. Why? Because the agency's agriculture and energy economists said the mandates are not causing sufficient damage to warrant action. This not only goes against common sense, but runs counter to the experience of Americans at the grocery checkout counter.
Denying Texas's request is a mistake that will continue to force families to bear a heavier financial burden to put food on the table than necessary and harm the livestock industry.
Supporters of the ethanol mandate have their hearts in the right place if they want to diversify this nation's fuel supply. But artificially propping up an industry to the detriment of the vast majority of Americans is bad policy. And that's what this mandate does.
There are many sources of renewable energy in addition to corn-based ethanol. It is time America took steps to develop the technology to make use of these sources.
Texas is leading the nation in this movement. We are a top contributor to the nation's domestic fuel supply, and a leader in wind, biofuel and solar energy production. We harness the benefits of clean and efficient nuclear power, and are investing considerable resources in developing nonfood bioenergy such as algae, switchgrass, jatropha and camelina—all of which have minimal impact on food production and the environment. The U.S. would be wise to follow Texas's lead.
The EPA needs to stop using bureaucratic definitions of what constitutes "severe economic harm" and take a look at reality. American families are struggling to put food on the table because of rising food prices. Without a doubt, the destruction of the Texas livestock industry—the nation's largest beef producer—constitutes severe harm to our country's economy. Forcing Texas ranchers to close their doors because they can no longer afford to feed their livestock takes food off the table for millions of Americans. If that's not "severe economic damage," what is?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Byrd's Bad Idea Is Back
Wall Street Journal
Monday, August 11, 2008
When Members of Congress believe they have a good idea in the national interest, they debate it in the open and demand a vote. When they know they have a bad idea for a chosen few, they work in secret. So it is with the subterranean efforts to revive the "Byrd Amendment," a nasty trade law that offers U.S. companies a double reward for seeking tariff help from Washington.
Senator Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.) and a few bipartisan pals snuck this protectionist gift into law in 2000 by attaching it to a spending bill. Congress repealed it in 2005, but not before the provision did great harm to America's trading reputation and U.S. exporters after being declared illegal by the World Trade Organization. Now with a new Congress, and in an election year, Mr. Byrd and Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown are once again poised to sneak the provision into law.
A draft "Dear Colleague" letter of anonymous (but probably Byrd-Brown) provenance has been circulating in the Senate referring to "strong support for legislation to reinstate" the 2000 law, whose repeal "was a terrible mistake." Meanwhile, Sen. Byrd has put customs and duties language in a pending appropriations bill -- a red flag to those who know how such "placeholder" language could be expanded at the last minute to revive his 2000 act.
The goal of the Byrd Amendment -- aka the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act -- was to provide extra incentive for businesses to file trade complaints by giving them a share of proceeds. Instead of siccing the U.S. government on foreign companies to collect punitive duties for the Treasury, it gave the tariff money directly to the companies that file complaints.
As of 2007, some $1.9 billion had been handed out to thousands of supplicants, from bee keepers to steel manufacturers. The lion's share has gone to big business. A GAO report found that between 2001 and 2004, more than half of Byrd money went to five companies, and 20% went to just one, an Ohio bearings maker named Timken. In the 2007 rankings of 1,982 payees, Idaho's Micron semiconductor company won the jackpot, with $37,938,402.
Back in 2005, the GAO also reported that nobody was even checking to determine the accuracy of losses claimed under Byrd. In each sector -- raspberries, catfish, pencils, furniture, etc. -- the more you claimed, the bigger your share of the pot. The American Italian Pasta Company of Kansas City, Mo., which alleged more than $8 billion in losses, raked in millions as a result.
The losers in all this were the rest of us. That includes the American companies, as some told the GAO, which suffered or collapsed because they couldn't compete with domestic rivals flush with Byrd cash. Also incalculable are losses to American exporters. When the WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal, it authorized 11 of our trading partners, including those in the EU and Japan, to impose retaliatory tariffs on American products. Many duly slammed us. A revived Byrd would trigger more retaliation, and at a time when exports are the main source of U.S. growth.
Even with all this evidence on their side, Byrd opponents are worried. Although Senator Larry Craig (R., Idaho) -- who brags on his Web site about steering Byrd money to Micron -- will soon retire, other Republicans, such as Thad Cochran (R., Miss.), are on board with many Democrats.
Whether they operate in the dark of night again, or subject their protectionist bill to open review, one thing has changed since 2000. This time around, no rhetoric about saving jobs can mask that Byrd is your basic billion-dollar slush fund.
Monday, August 11, 2008
When Members of Congress believe they have a good idea in the national interest, they debate it in the open and demand a vote. When they know they have a bad idea for a chosen few, they work in secret. So it is with the subterranean efforts to revive the "Byrd Amendment," a nasty trade law that offers U.S. companies a double reward for seeking tariff help from Washington.
Senator Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.) and a few bipartisan pals snuck this protectionist gift into law in 2000 by attaching it to a spending bill. Congress repealed it in 2005, but not before the provision did great harm to America's trading reputation and U.S. exporters after being declared illegal by the World Trade Organization. Now with a new Congress, and in an election year, Mr. Byrd and Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown are once again poised to sneak the provision into law.
A draft "Dear Colleague" letter of anonymous (but probably Byrd-Brown) provenance has been circulating in the Senate referring to "strong support for legislation to reinstate" the 2000 law, whose repeal "was a terrible mistake." Meanwhile, Sen. Byrd has put customs and duties language in a pending appropriations bill -- a red flag to those who know how such "placeholder" language could be expanded at the last minute to revive his 2000 act.
The goal of the Byrd Amendment -- aka the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act -- was to provide extra incentive for businesses to file trade complaints by giving them a share of proceeds. Instead of siccing the U.S. government on foreign companies to collect punitive duties for the Treasury, it gave the tariff money directly to the companies that file complaints.
As of 2007, some $1.9 billion had been handed out to thousands of supplicants, from bee keepers to steel manufacturers. The lion's share has gone to big business. A GAO report found that between 2001 and 2004, more than half of Byrd money went to five companies, and 20% went to just one, an Ohio bearings maker named Timken. In the 2007 rankings of 1,982 payees, Idaho's Micron semiconductor company won the jackpot, with $37,938,402.
Back in 2005, the GAO also reported that nobody was even checking to determine the accuracy of losses claimed under Byrd. In each sector -- raspberries, catfish, pencils, furniture, etc. -- the more you claimed, the bigger your share of the pot. The American Italian Pasta Company of Kansas City, Mo., which alleged more than $8 billion in losses, raked in millions as a result.
The losers in all this were the rest of us. That includes the American companies, as some told the GAO, which suffered or collapsed because they couldn't compete with domestic rivals flush with Byrd cash. Also incalculable are losses to American exporters. When the WTO ruled the Byrd Amendment illegal, it authorized 11 of our trading partners, including those in the EU and Japan, to impose retaliatory tariffs on American products. Many duly slammed us. A revived Byrd would trigger more retaliation, and at a time when exports are the main source of U.S. growth.
Even with all this evidence on their side, Byrd opponents are worried. Although Senator Larry Craig (R., Idaho) -- who brags on his Web site about steering Byrd money to Micron -- will soon retire, other Republicans, such as Thad Cochran (R., Miss.), are on board with many Democrats.
Whether they operate in the dark of night again, or subject their protectionist bill to open review, one thing has changed since 2000. This time around, no rhetoric about saving jobs can mask that Byrd is your basic billion-dollar slush fund.
What Would Obama Fight For?
Mark Hillman
Monday, August 11, 2008
Unless you've been imbibing 100-proof hope-and-change, you could hardly listen to President — er, make that, Candidate — Obama's Berlin speech without questioning whether there is anything that he is truly willing to fight for. Not merely fighting metaphorically or deploying persuasive prose, but actually committing American lives to defend a principle that must not be compromised.
When Obama's campaign appropriated Brandenburg Gate as the backdrop for his "citizen of the world" speech, his handlers certainly expected the venue to frame him in a distinctly presidential stature.
Instead, the staging created an unmistakable contrast between courageous presidents who faced down genuine threats from dangerous enemies and the empty, self-aggrandizing platitudes of Obama, who seems to take for granted his election and now awaits transfiguration.
Obama talked about the 1948 Soviet blockade intended to enslave Berliners under communist domination, but he then suggested that "the people of the world" rose up to save Berlin.
Nonsense.
The Allies' initial plan for post-war reconstruction of Germany faltered. (No, George W. Bush isn't the first president to have trouble transitioning from war against a uniformed enemy to uniting a conquered people and rebuilding their country.)
The Soviet communists, with a numerically superior military, saw the chance to seize control of an isolated people, but President Truman guided America, aided by Great Britain, to sustain a herculean airlift — more than 278,000 flights — that provided food and coal for isolated Berliners for nearly 11 months.
Obama recalled how the mayor of Berlin exhorted his people and "the people of the world" to "stand together united until this battle is one."
But Obama's record toward the people of Iraq is just the opposite. Had his view prevailed, the world would have turned its back on the Iraqis, allowing Saddam Hussein to continue his reign of terror, torture, murder and rape. Rather than help Iraqis secure their freedom, Obama's policy of retreat in the face of adversity would have told the people of Baghdad, "We're outta here; fend for yourselves."
So far, nothing about Obama indicates that he places a higher value on courage than on protecting his popularity.
President Kennedy's 1961 visit demonstrated solidarity with citizens of West Berlin when the Soviets divided the city by constructing the Berlin Wall. Kennedy's declaration, "ich bin ein Berliner," was considered too provocative by his own national security advisors.
When President Reagan called upon Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," he was discouraged by his advisors and ridiculed in Europe as a "warmonger." Whereas Obama's superfluous speech attracted 200,000, Reagan's now-historic speech was witnessed by just 20,000 Germans — in contrast to 25,000 who protested against him.
Seventeen months later, Reagan was vindicated when the wall did come down. What could possibly be significant about Obama's speech 17 months from now?
When Obama claims "a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one," he proves that just because a speaker is captivating, he doesn't necessarily know what he's talking about.
The world certainly did not stand "as one" against Soviet communism. Much of the world either was controlled by, supportive of or unwilling to confront the USSR.
Like Obama, Reagan's predecessor, Jimmy Carter, thought negotiation and accommodation could accomplish more than confrontation. Six months into his first term, Carter criticized our "inordinate fear of communism." He signed treaties that trusted the Soviets, without verification, to limit their nuclear arsenal. By the end of his term, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan and Iranian revolutionaries seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
Truman, Kennedy and Reagan earned their places in history because they believed that freedom — even for people in a foreign land — was worth fighting for. Freedom's enemies were moved not by words but by the conviction that our presidents would back their words with action.
Obama's talk tickles the ears of his audiences, but so far nothing indicates that he is prepared, in the manner of Teddy Roosevelt, to "speak softly and carry a big stick."
Monday, August 11, 2008
Unless you've been imbibing 100-proof hope-and-change, you could hardly listen to President — er, make that, Candidate — Obama's Berlin speech without questioning whether there is anything that he is truly willing to fight for. Not merely fighting metaphorically or deploying persuasive prose, but actually committing American lives to defend a principle that must not be compromised.
When Obama's campaign appropriated Brandenburg Gate as the backdrop for his "citizen of the world" speech, his handlers certainly expected the venue to frame him in a distinctly presidential stature.
Instead, the staging created an unmistakable contrast between courageous presidents who faced down genuine threats from dangerous enemies and the empty, self-aggrandizing platitudes of Obama, who seems to take for granted his election and now awaits transfiguration.
Obama talked about the 1948 Soviet blockade intended to enslave Berliners under communist domination, but he then suggested that "the people of the world" rose up to save Berlin.
Nonsense.
The Allies' initial plan for post-war reconstruction of Germany faltered. (No, George W. Bush isn't the first president to have trouble transitioning from war against a uniformed enemy to uniting a conquered people and rebuilding their country.)
The Soviet communists, with a numerically superior military, saw the chance to seize control of an isolated people, but President Truman guided America, aided by Great Britain, to sustain a herculean airlift — more than 278,000 flights — that provided food and coal for isolated Berliners for nearly 11 months.
Obama recalled how the mayor of Berlin exhorted his people and "the people of the world" to "stand together united until this battle is one."
But Obama's record toward the people of Iraq is just the opposite. Had his view prevailed, the world would have turned its back on the Iraqis, allowing Saddam Hussein to continue his reign of terror, torture, murder and rape. Rather than help Iraqis secure their freedom, Obama's policy of retreat in the face of adversity would have told the people of Baghdad, "We're outta here; fend for yourselves."
So far, nothing about Obama indicates that he places a higher value on courage than on protecting his popularity.
President Kennedy's 1961 visit demonstrated solidarity with citizens of West Berlin when the Soviets divided the city by constructing the Berlin Wall. Kennedy's declaration, "ich bin ein Berliner," was considered too provocative by his own national security advisors.
When President Reagan called upon Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," he was discouraged by his advisors and ridiculed in Europe as a "warmonger." Whereas Obama's superfluous speech attracted 200,000, Reagan's now-historic speech was witnessed by just 20,000 Germans — in contrast to 25,000 who protested against him.
Seventeen months later, Reagan was vindicated when the wall did come down. What could possibly be significant about Obama's speech 17 months from now?
When Obama claims "a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one," he proves that just because a speaker is captivating, he doesn't necessarily know what he's talking about.
The world certainly did not stand "as one" against Soviet communism. Much of the world either was controlled by, supportive of or unwilling to confront the USSR.
Like Obama, Reagan's predecessor, Jimmy Carter, thought negotiation and accommodation could accomplish more than confrontation. Six months into his first term, Carter criticized our "inordinate fear of communism." He signed treaties that trusted the Soviets, without verification, to limit their nuclear arsenal. By the end of his term, the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan and Iranian revolutionaries seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
Truman, Kennedy and Reagan earned their places in history because they believed that freedom — even for people in a foreign land — was worth fighting for. Freedom's enemies were moved not by words but by the conviction that our presidents would back their words with action.
Obama's talk tickles the ears of his audiences, but so far nothing indicates that he is prepared, in the manner of Teddy Roosevelt, to "speak softly and carry a big stick."
Black Politics? You mean liberal politics
Star Parker
Monday, August 11, 2008
A feature story in this week's New York Times Magazine asks, "Is Obama the End of Black Politics?"
This in the wake of a full week of TV talking heads asking if presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama played the "race card" in his response to John McCain's Obama "celebrity" ads. And an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by black journalist Juan Williams saying "The Race Issue Isn't Going Away."
Williams is right. The race issue isn't going away. And the New York Times feature, which profiles new young black politicians around the nation -- like Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, Newark, N.J., mayor Corey Booker, and Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter -- sheds little light on the issue in what it says.
More revealing about the Times piece is what it doesn't say.
The Times reporter never found it relevant to note that every black politician he spoke to is a Democrat. Nor did he see a need to talk to a single black conservative.
It's not like black conservatives have nothing to say here. Hoover Institution scholar Shelby Steele wrote a book about Obama. Tom Sowell has regularly written about him, as have I.
But black conservatives are not considered relevant to these discussions because race is not an issue of ethnicity but an issue of politics. Black politics means liberal politics and hence black conservatives are not black.
When I do media and speak as a conservative, I can expect emails pouring in from blacks calling me a sellout, who cannot conceive that I actually believe what I say, and for whom there is little doubt that I am a paid Republican shill.
Almost a third of blacks surveyed in a recent Wall Street Journal poll responded that race is the most important or one of the most important considerations in their vote.
But practically speaking, it makes no difference. Despite black excitement and pride in the Obama candidacy, the black vote would go for whoever headed the Democratic ticket, white or black. In 2004 John Kerry got 88 percent of the black vote.
The dynamics that the Obama candidacy has interjected is new only in form, not in content.
In the past, the liberal at the top of the heap for whom blacks overwhelmingly voted was white. Now that liberal is black. That's new.
Barack Obama, as Shelby Steele has written, departs from the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton brand of politics in that he is far more sophisticated and subtle in how to play on white guilt and how to intimidate. That's new.
But the liberal content and agenda is not new, and this blacks continue to buy en masse.
The points conservatives have been hammering home for the last 20 years have not been for naught. There is increasing awareness among blacks how family breakdown is driving the social problems of the community.
This is not lost on Obama. His speeches paying credence to the importance and relevance of personal responsibility are well received among blacks, but also play well to the whites he wishes to reach.
But the program behind the words remains comfortably lodged on the far left. Big government answers for everything, redistribution of wealth, use of law as a tool for politics, liberal abortion policies, and legitimization of the gay agenda.
The relevant question is not if Obama means the end of black politics. The issue is will black politics -- black uniform support for liberals -- ever change?
In a Pew Research Center survey of blacks done last year, almost 90 percent said that Oprah Winfrey is a "good influence," but only 50 percent said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and just 31 percent said Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas are.
In the same survey, almost 70 percent of blacks said they "almost always/frequently" face discrimination when applying for a job or when renting or buying an apartment or house.
Despite the fact that the survey showed that blacks have traditional and conservative views regarding crime and promiscuity, the sense of vulnerability defines black attitudes and politically trumps everything else. There's a lot of history driving these feelings and liberals will continue to exploit them.
Things won't change until blacks begin to see that these same liberal politics and attitudes are at the root of their problems today.
Monday, August 11, 2008
A feature story in this week's New York Times Magazine asks, "Is Obama the End of Black Politics?"
This in the wake of a full week of TV talking heads asking if presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama played the "race card" in his response to John McCain's Obama "celebrity" ads. And an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by black journalist Juan Williams saying "The Race Issue Isn't Going Away."
Williams is right. The race issue isn't going away. And the New York Times feature, which profiles new young black politicians around the nation -- like Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, Newark, N.J., mayor Corey Booker, and Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter -- sheds little light on the issue in what it says.
More revealing about the Times piece is what it doesn't say.
The Times reporter never found it relevant to note that every black politician he spoke to is a Democrat. Nor did he see a need to talk to a single black conservative.
It's not like black conservatives have nothing to say here. Hoover Institution scholar Shelby Steele wrote a book about Obama. Tom Sowell has regularly written about him, as have I.
But black conservatives are not considered relevant to these discussions because race is not an issue of ethnicity but an issue of politics. Black politics means liberal politics and hence black conservatives are not black.
When I do media and speak as a conservative, I can expect emails pouring in from blacks calling me a sellout, who cannot conceive that I actually believe what I say, and for whom there is little doubt that I am a paid Republican shill.
Almost a third of blacks surveyed in a recent Wall Street Journal poll responded that race is the most important or one of the most important considerations in their vote.
But practically speaking, it makes no difference. Despite black excitement and pride in the Obama candidacy, the black vote would go for whoever headed the Democratic ticket, white or black. In 2004 John Kerry got 88 percent of the black vote.
The dynamics that the Obama candidacy has interjected is new only in form, not in content.
In the past, the liberal at the top of the heap for whom blacks overwhelmingly voted was white. Now that liberal is black. That's new.
Barack Obama, as Shelby Steele has written, departs from the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton brand of politics in that he is far more sophisticated and subtle in how to play on white guilt and how to intimidate. That's new.
But the liberal content and agenda is not new, and this blacks continue to buy en masse.
The points conservatives have been hammering home for the last 20 years have not been for naught. There is increasing awareness among blacks how family breakdown is driving the social problems of the community.
This is not lost on Obama. His speeches paying credence to the importance and relevance of personal responsibility are well received among blacks, but also play well to the whites he wishes to reach.
But the program behind the words remains comfortably lodged on the far left. Big government answers for everything, redistribution of wealth, use of law as a tool for politics, liberal abortion policies, and legitimization of the gay agenda.
The relevant question is not if Obama means the end of black politics. The issue is will black politics -- black uniform support for liberals -- ever change?
In a Pew Research Center survey of blacks done last year, almost 90 percent said that Oprah Winfrey is a "good influence," but only 50 percent said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and just 31 percent said Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas are.
In the same survey, almost 70 percent of blacks said they "almost always/frequently" face discrimination when applying for a job or when renting or buying an apartment or house.
Despite the fact that the survey showed that blacks have traditional and conservative views regarding crime and promiscuity, the sense of vulnerability defines black attitudes and politically trumps everything else. There's a lot of history driving these feelings and liberals will continue to exploit them.
Things won't change until blacks begin to see that these same liberal politics and attitudes are at the root of their problems today.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The Myth of Moral Equivalency
Burt Prelutsky
Friday, August 08, 2008
There was a time not all that long ago when most of us agreed about what constituted good and evil. But that time, I’m afraid, has come and gone and is now as passé as five cent cigars and 45 cents-a-gallon gasoline.
Our former sense of morality hasn’t been replaced by immorality, at least not entirely, but by something that’s probably more dangerous because it comes cleverly disguised as broad-mindedness. Those in the mass media and academia ridicule people who still believe there are nations, values and cultures, that are superior to others, and they regard those Americans who have the temerity to disagree with them as yokels, super patriots and religious hypocrites. The elitists trumpet moral equivalency as an ideal. And yet, time and again, they display their own double standards. The same folks who were so upset about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard and his early problems with alcohol aren’t the least put out by Barack Obama’s avoidance of military service and his admitted use of illegal drugs. Apparently even moral equivalency doesn’t exist if one of the parties is a Republican and the other is a Democrat.
Steven Spielberg and his sophomoric cohorts got the moral equivalency ball rolling with “Munich,” a piece of Hollywood hooey that contended that there was no real difference between Palestinian cut-throats murdering 11 Israeli athletes at the ’72 Olympics and Israel’s tracking the murderers down and meting out justice.
More recently, we had Barack Obama’s insisting that Israel’s taking steps to defend itself against the constant missile attacks from Hamas is as inexcusable as the attacks, themselves. But then what can you expect from a guy who kept insisting that Iran wasn’t worth worrying about and that the Jews should seriously consider giving up half of Jerusalem to people who insist that any piece of real estate they covet is a holy Islamic city?
Those on the left regard themselves as the moral, as well as intellectual, superiors of those on the right because they claim to see shades of gray whereas conservatives see only black and white. The problem is that most things are black and white, and the inability to realize that doesn’t suggest clearer vision, but only lack of courage and conviction. So, while those on the right are convinced that capitalism, for instance, is better than communism and socialism, and have no problem saying as much, liberals go around parroting sound bites. They would have you believe that Guantanamo is the same as Buchenwald, Bush is the same as Hitler, and that the members of the U.S. military are either the same as storm troopers, in the words of Sen. Dick Durbin, or merely uneducated suckers, according to Sen. John Kerry.
It is not the height of sophistication to insist, as left-wingers do, that modern day Judaism and Christianity are no better than Islamic fundamentalism. When the Islamists are blowing up school buses and pizza parlors, flying jet planes into skyscrapers and beheading innocent human beings, to suggest that these blood-thirsty Neanderthals are the moral equals of Christians and Jews is not only absurd, it’s an evil slander of religious people who have never done anything wrong, and who are guilty of nothing worse than worshipping a God whose name doesn’t happen to be Allah.
Furthermore, when leftists claim that Israel is no better than its enemies, they are not merely mistaken, they are lying and, what’s more, they know it. After all, Israel is a western-style democracy. They don’t go in for honor killings. They don’t go in for suicide bombings. They don’t bestow honors on people who bash in the heads of little children. They even allow Israeli Arabs to vote and to hold elected office. What’s more, Israel is the only real ally America has in the Middle East, no matter how many bribes we pay out to the Arab world and no matter how much lip service our politicians pay to the likes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Whenever I hear someone claim that he’s not an anti-Semite just because he’s always condemning Israel’s policies, I know he’s lying. On its worst day, Israel is better than Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority. When a nation of five million Jews is surrounded by 150 million enemies who, day in and day out, plan and pray for its extermination, only a confirmed Jew-hater would insist that it’s Israel that must be reined in.
In conclusion, let me just say that moral equivalency may be a lot of things, but moral isn’t one of them.
Friday, August 08, 2008
There was a time not all that long ago when most of us agreed about what constituted good and evil. But that time, I’m afraid, has come and gone and is now as passé as five cent cigars and 45 cents-a-gallon gasoline.
Our former sense of morality hasn’t been replaced by immorality, at least not entirely, but by something that’s probably more dangerous because it comes cleverly disguised as broad-mindedness. Those in the mass media and academia ridicule people who still believe there are nations, values and cultures, that are superior to others, and they regard those Americans who have the temerity to disagree with them as yokels, super patriots and religious hypocrites. The elitists trumpet moral equivalency as an ideal. And yet, time and again, they display their own double standards. The same folks who were so upset about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard and his early problems with alcohol aren’t the least put out by Barack Obama’s avoidance of military service and his admitted use of illegal drugs. Apparently even moral equivalency doesn’t exist if one of the parties is a Republican and the other is a Democrat.
Steven Spielberg and his sophomoric cohorts got the moral equivalency ball rolling with “Munich,” a piece of Hollywood hooey that contended that there was no real difference between Palestinian cut-throats murdering 11 Israeli athletes at the ’72 Olympics and Israel’s tracking the murderers down and meting out justice.
More recently, we had Barack Obama’s insisting that Israel’s taking steps to defend itself against the constant missile attacks from Hamas is as inexcusable as the attacks, themselves. But then what can you expect from a guy who kept insisting that Iran wasn’t worth worrying about and that the Jews should seriously consider giving up half of Jerusalem to people who insist that any piece of real estate they covet is a holy Islamic city?
Those on the left regard themselves as the moral, as well as intellectual, superiors of those on the right because they claim to see shades of gray whereas conservatives see only black and white. The problem is that most things are black and white, and the inability to realize that doesn’t suggest clearer vision, but only lack of courage and conviction. So, while those on the right are convinced that capitalism, for instance, is better than communism and socialism, and have no problem saying as much, liberals go around parroting sound bites. They would have you believe that Guantanamo is the same as Buchenwald, Bush is the same as Hitler, and that the members of the U.S. military are either the same as storm troopers, in the words of Sen. Dick Durbin, or merely uneducated suckers, according to Sen. John Kerry.
It is not the height of sophistication to insist, as left-wingers do, that modern day Judaism and Christianity are no better than Islamic fundamentalism. When the Islamists are blowing up school buses and pizza parlors, flying jet planes into skyscrapers and beheading innocent human beings, to suggest that these blood-thirsty Neanderthals are the moral equals of Christians and Jews is not only absurd, it’s an evil slander of religious people who have never done anything wrong, and who are guilty of nothing worse than worshipping a God whose name doesn’t happen to be Allah.
Furthermore, when leftists claim that Israel is no better than its enemies, they are not merely mistaken, they are lying and, what’s more, they know it. After all, Israel is a western-style democracy. They don’t go in for honor killings. They don’t go in for suicide bombings. They don’t bestow honors on people who bash in the heads of little children. They even allow Israeli Arabs to vote and to hold elected office. What’s more, Israel is the only real ally America has in the Middle East, no matter how many bribes we pay out to the Arab world and no matter how much lip service our politicians pay to the likes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Whenever I hear someone claim that he’s not an anti-Semite just because he’s always condemning Israel’s policies, I know he’s lying. On its worst day, Israel is better than Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority. When a nation of five million Jews is surrounded by 150 million enemies who, day in and day out, plan and pray for its extermination, only a confirmed Jew-hater would insist that it’s Israel that must be reined in.
In conclusion, let me just say that moral equivalency may be a lot of things, but moral isn’t one of them.
Trade Freely and Expand
By George Alogoskoufis
Saturday, August 8, 2008
In periods of world-wide economic turmoil and international uncertainties, it is only natural that people will display increased anxiety about the future. However, Europe has successfully overcome even bigger challenges in the past and has the ability to do it again. A union that emerged from the ruins of a divided continent to create one of the world's largest areas of freedom and prosperity is strong and adaptable enough to cope with the challenges we face -- provided we can summon the leadership, vision and resolve required.
The pause for reflection following Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty must not be allowed to turn into a prolonged period of inertia. Inevitably, the increasing uncertainty about the treaty raises questions about the prospects for further enlargement. The resolution of this issue should demonstrate the EU's continued potential as an agent for change and progress across the continent. It is important to recognize that the desire of more countries to join the EU remains one of the most dramatic examples of the union's success.
We must therefore ensure that the most recent round of enlargement does not become the last. Until the status of the Lisbon Treaty is resolved, the EU should aim to sustain momentum by advancing forms of deep integration that bring aspirant countries as close as possible to the point of membership. That should include large countries like Turkey, as well as smaller nations in East and Southeast Europe.
The second major challenge is to restore confidence in our economic prospects. After a long period of rapid and sustained expansion, it is clear that the global economy is now entering a much more difficult and uncertain period. Current forecasts do not justify talk of a global recession. But a number of European countries, along with the United States, are likely to experience a significant contraction of growth in the immediate future as accumulated international macroeconomic imbalances unwind and economies adjust to cope with the effects of weakened financial markets and higher commodity prices.
This is a problem of political as much as economic management. It is imperative that European governments work with each other and with countries across the world to demonstrate that free trade and open financial markets are compatible with the widespread need for economic security and progress.
Imperatively now -- following the difficulties of the Doha Round -- we need to work together with increased effort to address the issues that caused the halt of the talks and revive the momentum so as to achieve a successful outcome for the world economy and for developing countries. There will be no winners if we fail on this ground.
The EU could do more to lift the current mood of economic and political uncertainty by extending the benefits of economic integration throughout its own neighborhood. This is a parallel but separate issue from the question of enlargement and ought to be pursued on its own merits. The benefits of this approach are already evident on the basis of long experience. On each occasion that the EU has welcomed new countries into its common economic space, the effect has been a dramatic and sustained rise in growth for the new entrants, matched by greater trade and prosperity for Europe as a whole.
Nowhere does this lesson apply more strongly today than to Southeastern Europe, a region of 10 countries and 140 million people with great potential to become an engine for future growth and prosperity in Europe. Most of these countries are poor by EU standards, yet given the opportunity they could reward Europe with a huge dividend in terms of extra growth and trade.
Achieving this goal will be a major undertaking for countries in the region, including those, like Greece, that are already in the EU. But it is also something that the EU as a whole should be actively committed to. And to this end, we should all eliminate trade barriers, improve the investment climate, foster cross-border economic and educational partnerships, boost infrastructure developments in transport, communications and energy, and encourage structural economic reforms. In this respect, the recent decision of EU ministers for economic and financial affairs to accelerate the establishment of a Western Balkan Investment Framework is extremely positive.
One thing is certain: Europe cannot afford to stand still in the face of current international difficulties. Inertia will increase popular cynicism and, with it, the threat of a political and economic backlash. We need to identify policies and initiatives to shed light on the practical benefits of integration. The effective implementation of the Lisbon Strategy and the consistent application of the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact remain imperative. Extending the boundaries of economic prosperity to include the whole of Southeastern Europe would be one way of demonstrating confidence in the continued vitality of the European idea.
Saturday, August 8, 2008
In periods of world-wide economic turmoil and international uncertainties, it is only natural that people will display increased anxiety about the future. However, Europe has successfully overcome even bigger challenges in the past and has the ability to do it again. A union that emerged from the ruins of a divided continent to create one of the world's largest areas of freedom and prosperity is strong and adaptable enough to cope with the challenges we face -- provided we can summon the leadership, vision and resolve required.
The pause for reflection following Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty must not be allowed to turn into a prolonged period of inertia. Inevitably, the increasing uncertainty about the treaty raises questions about the prospects for further enlargement. The resolution of this issue should demonstrate the EU's continued potential as an agent for change and progress across the continent. It is important to recognize that the desire of more countries to join the EU remains one of the most dramatic examples of the union's success.
We must therefore ensure that the most recent round of enlargement does not become the last. Until the status of the Lisbon Treaty is resolved, the EU should aim to sustain momentum by advancing forms of deep integration that bring aspirant countries as close as possible to the point of membership. That should include large countries like Turkey, as well as smaller nations in East and Southeast Europe.
The second major challenge is to restore confidence in our economic prospects. After a long period of rapid and sustained expansion, it is clear that the global economy is now entering a much more difficult and uncertain period. Current forecasts do not justify talk of a global recession. But a number of European countries, along with the United States, are likely to experience a significant contraction of growth in the immediate future as accumulated international macroeconomic imbalances unwind and economies adjust to cope with the effects of weakened financial markets and higher commodity prices.
This is a problem of political as much as economic management. It is imperative that European governments work with each other and with countries across the world to demonstrate that free trade and open financial markets are compatible with the widespread need for economic security and progress.
Imperatively now -- following the difficulties of the Doha Round -- we need to work together with increased effort to address the issues that caused the halt of the talks and revive the momentum so as to achieve a successful outcome for the world economy and for developing countries. There will be no winners if we fail on this ground.
The EU could do more to lift the current mood of economic and political uncertainty by extending the benefits of economic integration throughout its own neighborhood. This is a parallel but separate issue from the question of enlargement and ought to be pursued on its own merits. The benefits of this approach are already evident on the basis of long experience. On each occasion that the EU has welcomed new countries into its common economic space, the effect has been a dramatic and sustained rise in growth for the new entrants, matched by greater trade and prosperity for Europe as a whole.
Nowhere does this lesson apply more strongly today than to Southeastern Europe, a region of 10 countries and 140 million people with great potential to become an engine for future growth and prosperity in Europe. Most of these countries are poor by EU standards, yet given the opportunity they could reward Europe with a huge dividend in terms of extra growth and trade.
Achieving this goal will be a major undertaking for countries in the region, including those, like Greece, that are already in the EU. But it is also something that the EU as a whole should be actively committed to. And to this end, we should all eliminate trade barriers, improve the investment climate, foster cross-border economic and educational partnerships, boost infrastructure developments in transport, communications and energy, and encourage structural economic reforms. In this respect, the recent decision of EU ministers for economic and financial affairs to accelerate the establishment of a Western Balkan Investment Framework is extremely positive.
One thing is certain: Europe cannot afford to stand still in the face of current international difficulties. Inertia will increase popular cynicism and, with it, the threat of a political and economic backlash. We need to identify policies and initiatives to shed light on the practical benefits of integration. The effective implementation of the Lisbon Strategy and the consistent application of the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact remain imperative. Extending the boundaries of economic prosperity to include the whole of Southeastern Europe would be one way of demonstrating confidence in the continued vitality of the European idea.
A Change in Chávez?
By Mary Anastasia O'Grady
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has tried make himself a global powerbroker and the leader of a socialist resurgence, but his methods have been less than statesman-like. Calling the president of the United States an unflattering part of the human anatomy is one example. Hanging with Colombian terrorists is another.
Yet, according to the State Department's Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Tom Shannon, blowback may be starting to force the Venezuelan leader to rethink his antisocial ways. "Countries around the region have seen the political space open to Venezuela shrinking," the Bush Administration's top diplomat for Latin America told a House subcommittee last month. "The re-emergence of countries that have traditionally been regional leaders has constricted Venezuela's diplomatic movements."
This is a polite way of saying Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Peru and Mexico, thanks to their economic achievements and the evolution of their institutions, have been elevated to the realm of serious countries -- while Venezuela has sunk to banana-republic status.
Venezuela has been further damaged, Mr. Shannon added, by Mr. Chávez's failed campaign for a U.N. Security Council seat and his country's growing "internal problems" -- of which the most visible are skyrocketing crime, inflation, food shortages and unemployment.
Where Mr. Shannon ventured into questionable territory, however, was a suggestion that the loose cannon in Caracas may be seeing the error of his ways. "For the first time in many years," he said, Venezuela has "expressed a willingness to explore improved relations with the U.S. President Chávez recently told our Ambassador that he wanted to improve our counterdrug cooperation. . . . "
How wonderful. Venezuela under Mr. Chávez has become a key transshipment agent for cocaine destined for the U.S., Europe and -- lately -- West Africa, where (as even Mr. Shannon noted) "the drug trade is exploding and causing instability to the region."
Mr. Chávez may well be softening his tone since he can only conduct so many fights at one time. At home, he's trying to brace up his troubled rule with new decrees seizing control of the economy and setting up a personal militia. But to mistake his tactical maneuvers as a sign of new maturity would be wishful thinking. Let's hope the Bush Administration -- and whoever comes next -- is not so unwise.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has tried make himself a global powerbroker and the leader of a socialist resurgence, but his methods have been less than statesman-like. Calling the president of the United States an unflattering part of the human anatomy is one example. Hanging with Colombian terrorists is another.
Yet, according to the State Department's Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Tom Shannon, blowback may be starting to force the Venezuelan leader to rethink his antisocial ways. "Countries around the region have seen the political space open to Venezuela shrinking," the Bush Administration's top diplomat for Latin America told a House subcommittee last month. "The re-emergence of countries that have traditionally been regional leaders has constricted Venezuela's diplomatic movements."
This is a polite way of saying Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Peru and Mexico, thanks to their economic achievements and the evolution of their institutions, have been elevated to the realm of serious countries -- while Venezuela has sunk to banana-republic status.
Venezuela has been further damaged, Mr. Shannon added, by Mr. Chávez's failed campaign for a U.N. Security Council seat and his country's growing "internal problems" -- of which the most visible are skyrocketing crime, inflation, food shortages and unemployment.
Where Mr. Shannon ventured into questionable territory, however, was a suggestion that the loose cannon in Caracas may be seeing the error of his ways. "For the first time in many years," he said, Venezuela has "expressed a willingness to explore improved relations with the U.S. President Chávez recently told our Ambassador that he wanted to improve our counterdrug cooperation. . . . "
How wonderful. Venezuela under Mr. Chávez has become a key transshipment agent for cocaine destined for the U.S., Europe and -- lately -- West Africa, where (as even Mr. Shannon noted) "the drug trade is exploding and causing instability to the region."
Mr. Chávez may well be softening his tone since he can only conduct so many fights at one time. At home, he's trying to brace up his troubled rule with new decrees seizing control of the economy and setting up a personal militia. But to mistake his tactical maneuvers as a sign of new maturity would be wishful thinking. Let's hope the Bush Administration -- and whoever comes next -- is not so unwise.
Obama Supports Global Tax From United Nations
Christine O'Donnell
Friday, August 08, 2008
For an entire week, Americans watched as Senator Barack Obama took his act on the road, courting the European elitists and cowtowing to an endless array of foreign politicians. At this point it may be easy to take Obama’s “celebri-plomacy” lightly. Yet, his trip highlights a dangerous threat to America’s national sovereignty in the form of his globalist policies that will diminish America’s role in the world and outsource decisions of vital national interest to the United Nations.
His Global Poverty Act, currently under consideration in Congress, is just one such policy. Despite its seemingly innocuous title, the Global Poverty Act would force America to adopt the U.N.’s “Millennium Development Goals” as official U.S. policy. This means outsourcing to the United Nations all important decisions concerning the use of U.S. foreign aid dollars. Not only that, but the fee for allowing the U.N. to play the “middle man” in our global war on poverty would be a tax of .7 percent of the U.S. Gross National Product. That’s right. Barack Obama and his liberal allies such as Senator Biden have signed on to a bill that would allow the U.N. to tax America (and Americans) an estimated $845 billion over the next 13 years. Obama’s plan represents perhaps the greatest affront to our national sovereignty since the War of 1812.
The Global Poverty Act dismisses the American ideals of a free-market economy and responsible government for a global bureaucracy that has already lost tens of millions in development funds to corruption. The measure demands virtually no accountability or reform from the impoverished and often oppressive nations who are the recipients of our charitable largess. Furthermore, the United Nations Development Program has become the favorite “rich uncle” of terrorist states and rogue regimes, accidentally funneling millions to North Korea’s illicit weapons programs and violating 95 U.S. export laws in the process.
You might ask how this abomination has quietly made its way through Congress with barely a mention on mainstream media or by our representatives in Washington. The Global Poverty Act began in the U.S. House with only 84 co-sponsors and was quietly passed by a voice vote by Democrats and some well-meaning Republicans who did not know what was in the bill. Now, Obama has “taken the football” and launched a continuous effort to ram the bill through the Senate with the help of his new foreign policy lap dog, Senator Joe Biden (In the interest of full-disclosure, I should note that I am currently the Republican running against Joe Biden for the U.S. Senate in Delaware).
Senator Biden rushed the bill through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with another voice vote and without any hearings. The Senate voted against the bill in February 2008, but now Obama, Biden and their liberal cohorts lay in wait to slip the bill past the American people by rolling it into another larger spending package like the so-called “Coburn Omnibus.”
If we are not vigilant and allow Democrats in the Senate to sneak the “Global Poverty Tax” past the voters, we will sacrifice our national sovereignty and set the dangerous precedent of allowing the United Nations to tax Americans. Our “reward” for our benevolence will be a bureaucracy that provides little accountability and no measurable returns on our hefty global investment.
Without an insistence on serious economic and government reforms and accountability for every dollar spent, the U.S. will continue to spend hundreds of billions attempting to treat the symptoms of global poverty while at the same time feeding the disease. Reform and accountability are key to insuring that our investment in the fight against global poverty produces immediate and measurable results while providing freedom and long-term economic reform that give individuals the tools to lift themselves out of poverty and partake in the benefits of a free-market economy.
Throwing more money at the problem is not the answer. Handing over the job to an organization renowned for its incompetence is a recipe for disaster. Our greatest export is our unique system of government and the ingenuity it fosters. Economic assistance coupled with measurable reform provides a pathway to prosperity and a petri dish for burgeoning economic opportunity—not just for developing nations but also for the U.S. We have only to look at our $17.5 billion in annual exports to India’s growing middle class to see the long-term benefits of promoting government and economic reform both through responsible development aid and private sector partnerships.
America as a nation is at a critical time in her history. For 200 years, the United States has been a beacon of freedom and prosperity for the world. If we subjugate our leadership role to the U.N. and outsource our responsibilities to the United Nations’ Development Program, we will leave global prosperity and freedom to chance, crush the American economy with an $845 billion tax and fail all people throughout the world who aspire to all that we have achieved.
The Global Poverty Act is the first battle in what is no-doubt a far-reaching liberal assault on our sovereignty, our prosperity and our role as the leader of the free world. Obama, Biden and other globalist Democrats want to turn the United States into a nation of followers, but I still believe that America has a unique role as a defender of the oppressed and an example to every person with the capacity to dream of a better life. If we shirk our responsibility now, we will lose our national soul and the free world will pay the price for our passing the buck.
Friday, August 08, 2008
For an entire week, Americans watched as Senator Barack Obama took his act on the road, courting the European elitists and cowtowing to an endless array of foreign politicians. At this point it may be easy to take Obama’s “celebri-plomacy” lightly. Yet, his trip highlights a dangerous threat to America’s national sovereignty in the form of his globalist policies that will diminish America’s role in the world and outsource decisions of vital national interest to the United Nations.
His Global Poverty Act, currently under consideration in Congress, is just one such policy. Despite its seemingly innocuous title, the Global Poverty Act would force America to adopt the U.N.’s “Millennium Development Goals” as official U.S. policy. This means outsourcing to the United Nations all important decisions concerning the use of U.S. foreign aid dollars. Not only that, but the fee for allowing the U.N. to play the “middle man” in our global war on poverty would be a tax of .7 percent of the U.S. Gross National Product. That’s right. Barack Obama and his liberal allies such as Senator Biden have signed on to a bill that would allow the U.N. to tax America (and Americans) an estimated $845 billion over the next 13 years. Obama’s plan represents perhaps the greatest affront to our national sovereignty since the War of 1812.
The Global Poverty Act dismisses the American ideals of a free-market economy and responsible government for a global bureaucracy that has already lost tens of millions in development funds to corruption. The measure demands virtually no accountability or reform from the impoverished and often oppressive nations who are the recipients of our charitable largess. Furthermore, the United Nations Development Program has become the favorite “rich uncle” of terrorist states and rogue regimes, accidentally funneling millions to North Korea’s illicit weapons programs and violating 95 U.S. export laws in the process.
You might ask how this abomination has quietly made its way through Congress with barely a mention on mainstream media or by our representatives in Washington. The Global Poverty Act began in the U.S. House with only 84 co-sponsors and was quietly passed by a voice vote by Democrats and some well-meaning Republicans who did not know what was in the bill. Now, Obama has “taken the football” and launched a continuous effort to ram the bill through the Senate with the help of his new foreign policy lap dog, Senator Joe Biden (In the interest of full-disclosure, I should note that I am currently the Republican running against Joe Biden for the U.S. Senate in Delaware).
Senator Biden rushed the bill through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with another voice vote and without any hearings. The Senate voted against the bill in February 2008, but now Obama, Biden and their liberal cohorts lay in wait to slip the bill past the American people by rolling it into another larger spending package like the so-called “Coburn Omnibus.”
If we are not vigilant and allow Democrats in the Senate to sneak the “Global Poverty Tax” past the voters, we will sacrifice our national sovereignty and set the dangerous precedent of allowing the United Nations to tax Americans. Our “reward” for our benevolence will be a bureaucracy that provides little accountability and no measurable returns on our hefty global investment.
Without an insistence on serious economic and government reforms and accountability for every dollar spent, the U.S. will continue to spend hundreds of billions attempting to treat the symptoms of global poverty while at the same time feeding the disease. Reform and accountability are key to insuring that our investment in the fight against global poverty produces immediate and measurable results while providing freedom and long-term economic reform that give individuals the tools to lift themselves out of poverty and partake in the benefits of a free-market economy.
Throwing more money at the problem is not the answer. Handing over the job to an organization renowned for its incompetence is a recipe for disaster. Our greatest export is our unique system of government and the ingenuity it fosters. Economic assistance coupled with measurable reform provides a pathway to prosperity and a petri dish for burgeoning economic opportunity—not just for developing nations but also for the U.S. We have only to look at our $17.5 billion in annual exports to India’s growing middle class to see the long-term benefits of promoting government and economic reform both through responsible development aid and private sector partnerships.
America as a nation is at a critical time in her history. For 200 years, the United States has been a beacon of freedom and prosperity for the world. If we subjugate our leadership role to the U.N. and outsource our responsibilities to the United Nations’ Development Program, we will leave global prosperity and freedom to chance, crush the American economy with an $845 billion tax and fail all people throughout the world who aspire to all that we have achieved.
The Global Poverty Act is the first battle in what is no-doubt a far-reaching liberal assault on our sovereignty, our prosperity and our role as the leader of the free world. Obama, Biden and other globalist Democrats want to turn the United States into a nation of followers, but I still believe that America has a unique role as a defender of the oppressed and an example to every person with the capacity to dream of a better life. If we shirk our responsibility now, we will lose our national soul and the free world will pay the price for our passing the buck.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Stalinism Was Just as Bad as Nazism
By Mark Laar
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Last week Russia furiously attacked President Bush for his proclamation on Captive Nations Week (July 20-July 26), which was established to raise awareness of countries living under communist and other oppressive regimes. Mr. Bush said that, "In the 20th century, the evils of Soviet communism and Nazi fascism were defeated and freedom spread around the world as new democracies emerged."
The Russian Foreign Ministry claimed that treating Nazi fascism and Soviet communism as "a single evil" was an insult that "hurt the hearts" of World War II veterans in Russia and in allied countries, including the United States. "While condemning the abuse of power and unjustified severity of the Soviet regime's internal policies, we nevertheless can neither treat indifferently attempts to equate Communism and Nazism nor agree that they were inspired by the same ideas and aims," the ministry said in a statement.
Actually, the Bush statement is correct: There is really no big difference between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. When World War II began in September 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were allies; indeed Stalin and Hitler launched the war together.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty of Aug. 23 was a nonaggression pact between Germany and Russia; but a secret protocol in the treaty also opened the way for the division of Europe by carving Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania into spheres of influence. Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1 from the north, south and west; Stalin invaded Poland from the east on Sept. 17.
And this was only the beginning. The second campaign of the war was Soviet aggression against Finland in November 1939; only the third campaign, against Denmark and Norway (in April) was a pure German operation. The fourth campaign, the invasion of France in May 1940, was accompanied by Stalin's annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In this period, Stalin was a most devoted ally of Hitler. Without Soviet oil and grain, Hitler would probably not have survived the first year of the war. Stalin even ordered European communists not to help their governments fight against Hitler.
In occupied countries, Poland for example, the Nazi Gestapo and the Soviet NKVD worked hand in hand. Germany's secret police killed people in its zone of occupation according to racial criteria. In its zone, the Soviet secret police killed according to social or political criteria. The Nazi SS handed over Ukrainian nationalists to the Soviets; in return the NKVD handed over escaped German communists to the Gestapo.
Only when the two totalitarian leaders could not agree how to divide the world did war between them come. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941; the resulting anti-Nazi coalition helped the West survive and come out of the war with half of Europe rescued from totalitarianism. But for the rest of Europe under communist control, World War II ended only in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet empire.
In his marvelous book, "No Simple Victory," British historian Norman Davies asks us to remember that "the war in Europe was dominated by two evil monsters, not by one. Each of the monsters consumed the best people in its territory before embarking on a fight to the death for supremacy. The third force in the struggle -- the Western Powers -- was all but eliminated in the opening stage, and took much of the war to reassert its influence."
This statement in no way insults the millions of people who fought against the Nazis. The victims of the crimes of Stalin and Hitler included the people of the Soviet Union. Soviet losses in World War II were very high, according to some estimates, including by Mr. Davies, 27 million soldiers and civilians. But these losses not only include those killed by the German invasion; they also include people killed by communist repressions and deportations, as well as the killings by the Soviets of their own soldiers. Mr. Davies thinks that the number of Soviet soldiers killed by the NKVD could exceed the total number of battle deaths of the British and U.S. armies.
So why, in some quarters, are the crimes of communism not yet condemned? There are still many people who say that, whilst the crimes of Nazism were proven and condemned in the Nuremberg Trials, the crimes of communism still need investigation. Others hesitate to condemn communism because, knowing that Hitler saw in Bolshevism its main opponent, they fear to share a common position with the Nazis.
This is not a logical position. If we find two gangsters fighting each other and one of them kills another, this does not make the first gangster less of a criminal.
Communist terror was in the same league of infamy as the crimes of the Third Reich. It actually lasted longer, killing significantly more people than the Nazis did. This does not make Nazis better than communists. They were both fighting against freedom and human dignity, and must be condemned in the same way as evils of the 20th century.
Mr. Laar, a former prime minister of Estonia, is a founder of the Foundation for the Investigation of Communist Crimes.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Last week Russia furiously attacked President Bush for his proclamation on Captive Nations Week (July 20-July 26), which was established to raise awareness of countries living under communist and other oppressive regimes. Mr. Bush said that, "In the 20th century, the evils of Soviet communism and Nazi fascism were defeated and freedom spread around the world as new democracies emerged."
The Russian Foreign Ministry claimed that treating Nazi fascism and Soviet communism as "a single evil" was an insult that "hurt the hearts" of World War II veterans in Russia and in allied countries, including the United States. "While condemning the abuse of power and unjustified severity of the Soviet regime's internal policies, we nevertheless can neither treat indifferently attempts to equate Communism and Nazism nor agree that they were inspired by the same ideas and aims," the ministry said in a statement.
Actually, the Bush statement is correct: There is really no big difference between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. When World War II began in September 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were allies; indeed Stalin and Hitler launched the war together.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty of Aug. 23 was a nonaggression pact between Germany and Russia; but a secret protocol in the treaty also opened the way for the division of Europe by carving Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania into spheres of influence. Germany invaded Poland on Sept. 1 from the north, south and west; Stalin invaded Poland from the east on Sept. 17.
And this was only the beginning. The second campaign of the war was Soviet aggression against Finland in November 1939; only the third campaign, against Denmark and Norway (in April) was a pure German operation. The fourth campaign, the invasion of France in May 1940, was accompanied by Stalin's annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In this period, Stalin was a most devoted ally of Hitler. Without Soviet oil and grain, Hitler would probably not have survived the first year of the war. Stalin even ordered European communists not to help their governments fight against Hitler.
In occupied countries, Poland for example, the Nazi Gestapo and the Soviet NKVD worked hand in hand. Germany's secret police killed people in its zone of occupation according to racial criteria. In its zone, the Soviet secret police killed according to social or political criteria. The Nazi SS handed over Ukrainian nationalists to the Soviets; in return the NKVD handed over escaped German communists to the Gestapo.
Only when the two totalitarian leaders could not agree how to divide the world did war between them come. Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941; the resulting anti-Nazi coalition helped the West survive and come out of the war with half of Europe rescued from totalitarianism. But for the rest of Europe under communist control, World War II ended only in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet empire.
In his marvelous book, "No Simple Victory," British historian Norman Davies asks us to remember that "the war in Europe was dominated by two evil monsters, not by one. Each of the monsters consumed the best people in its territory before embarking on a fight to the death for supremacy. The third force in the struggle -- the Western Powers -- was all but eliminated in the opening stage, and took much of the war to reassert its influence."
This statement in no way insults the millions of people who fought against the Nazis. The victims of the crimes of Stalin and Hitler included the people of the Soviet Union. Soviet losses in World War II were very high, according to some estimates, including by Mr. Davies, 27 million soldiers and civilians. But these losses not only include those killed by the German invasion; they also include people killed by communist repressions and deportations, as well as the killings by the Soviets of their own soldiers. Mr. Davies thinks that the number of Soviet soldiers killed by the NKVD could exceed the total number of battle deaths of the British and U.S. armies.
So why, in some quarters, are the crimes of communism not yet condemned? There are still many people who say that, whilst the crimes of Nazism were proven and condemned in the Nuremberg Trials, the crimes of communism still need investigation. Others hesitate to condemn communism because, knowing that Hitler saw in Bolshevism its main opponent, they fear to share a common position with the Nazis.
This is not a logical position. If we find two gangsters fighting each other and one of them kills another, this does not make the first gangster less of a criminal.
Communist terror was in the same league of infamy as the crimes of the Third Reich. It actually lasted longer, killing significantly more people than the Nazis did. This does not make Nazis better than communists. They were both fighting against freedom and human dignity, and must be condemned in the same way as evils of the 20th century.
Mr. Laar, a former prime minister of Estonia, is a founder of the Foundation for the Investigation of Communist Crimes.
The Next Time You Say, 'Bush Lied, People Died' -- Think
Larry Elder
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Listening to National Public Radio on the way home from work, I found the interview -- at least at first -- fun enough.
NPR's Terry Gross interviewed comedian/actor Will Ferrell, actor John C. Reilly and writer/director Adam McKay -- to promote a new film.
All yukked about their careers, and then the interviewer asked Adam McKay how he and Ferrell began their collaboration years ago on "Saturday Night Live." "We had several writers writing a lot of the political stuff," said McKay. "But yeah, I had written a couple pretty big ones with Will. We actually wrote a sketch right after (Bush) was elected where Dick Cheney came out and said, 'Now a message from the president of the United States,' and it was Dick Cheney. And he was telling everyone, 'If you make less than $250,000, turn the channel right now because this doesn't apply to you.' And then he would say, 'If you make less than $10 million, turn the channel. What I'm about to say doesn't apply to you,' until finally it was a billion dollars. And he literally said, 'Put all your money in defense stocks. We're going to start a lot of wars. Oh my God, we're going to make a fortune off oil.' We wrote the most absurd things for him. And Will comes in as George Bush and he's found a stray dog in the parking lot and he's asking Cheney if he can keep him. And then he leaves, and Cheney goes on to talk about how we're going to rip this country off."
Then McKay took off his comic-writer hat and turned somber. Speaking seriously, without humor or satire, he said, "And I looked at the sketch about a year ago, and it's all completely accurate. And sadly it had -- "
" -- All came true, yeah," interrupted Ferrell. All came true?
I pulled into a restaurant, where I stayed less than an hour. I got back into my car, the radio still on NPR, but this time a different host, and a very different subject matter. Wounded Iraq war vets told their stories.
Staff Sgt. Jay Wilkerson: "Two IEDs hit my Humvee. The first IED hit the left door of the passenger (compartment) and blew the door off the Humvee, and the scout, who was behind the driver, he was killed. His body went with the door. His legs stayed in the vehicle. His name was Staff Sgt. Robert Hernandez. He was also my best friend. And the second RPG missile came, and it came inside the Humvee and exploded. And that's where the shrapnel went everywhere. And at that time, I was knocked unconscious. I woke up in Walter Reed Hospital.
"My family was coming in to see me. I mean family members like my brother, my mother, my sister, were coming and hugging me and kissing -- and I was like, 'Who are these people kissing me?' I didn't know who they were. And I had to learn how to walk again. I was in a wheelchair. Then I was walking with a cane. And I had to learn how to dress myself, how to eat, how to talk again, because I stutter now. You feel like you're a child in a man's body. I can't hear out of my left ear. I have a constant ringing. And my left eye is hurting because it stays dry. It doesn't -- there's no tears. And my face, the jaw is off-line. I had multiple problems with my fingers -- I can't bend my fingers. I'm constantly having neck problems -- I had a C5 (injury). I can't sleep all night. I can only sleep like three hours a day, and that's a good night for me.
"You know, it was actually easier for me if I would have died in Iraq. My neuropsychologist has told me my left side of my brain has been injured severely. So that is your ability to multi-task, to handle problems. So what I do, I watch game shows or look at crossword puzzles, and even though I'm in school or at the VA learning these processes, I do it on my own, to try to speed up my healing process. I'm trying to enhance my own ability because I'm a father. I have two kids. I have to show them that, hey, even though Daddy's not himself, you still have to work hard to achieve something."
I understand opposing the President on policy grounds. I cannot, however, get my head around people like Ferrell and company, who, in effect, tell wounded soldiers that they suffer not because President Bush thought the mission important for national security, not because the President considered Iraq a "grave and gathering danger."
No, they endure their daily ordeal because Darth Cheney and his minion Bush lied -- sending over 4,000 valiant men and women to their graves, with over 30,000 incurring wounds, in order to make their rich friends richer still.
Mssrs. Ferrell and McKay, meet Staff Sgt. Wilkerson.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Listening to National Public Radio on the way home from work, I found the interview -- at least at first -- fun enough.
NPR's Terry Gross interviewed comedian/actor Will Ferrell, actor John C. Reilly and writer/director Adam McKay -- to promote a new film.
All yukked about their careers, and then the interviewer asked Adam McKay how he and Ferrell began their collaboration years ago on "Saturday Night Live." "We had several writers writing a lot of the political stuff," said McKay. "But yeah, I had written a couple pretty big ones with Will. We actually wrote a sketch right after (Bush) was elected where Dick Cheney came out and said, 'Now a message from the president of the United States,' and it was Dick Cheney. And he was telling everyone, 'If you make less than $250,000, turn the channel right now because this doesn't apply to you.' And then he would say, 'If you make less than $10 million, turn the channel. What I'm about to say doesn't apply to you,' until finally it was a billion dollars. And he literally said, 'Put all your money in defense stocks. We're going to start a lot of wars. Oh my God, we're going to make a fortune off oil.' We wrote the most absurd things for him. And Will comes in as George Bush and he's found a stray dog in the parking lot and he's asking Cheney if he can keep him. And then he leaves, and Cheney goes on to talk about how we're going to rip this country off."
Then McKay took off his comic-writer hat and turned somber. Speaking seriously, without humor or satire, he said, "And I looked at the sketch about a year ago, and it's all completely accurate. And sadly it had -- "
" -- All came true, yeah," interrupted Ferrell. All came true?
I pulled into a restaurant, where I stayed less than an hour. I got back into my car, the radio still on NPR, but this time a different host, and a very different subject matter. Wounded Iraq war vets told their stories.
Staff Sgt. Jay Wilkerson: "Two IEDs hit my Humvee. The first IED hit the left door of the passenger (compartment) and blew the door off the Humvee, and the scout, who was behind the driver, he was killed. His body went with the door. His legs stayed in the vehicle. His name was Staff Sgt. Robert Hernandez. He was also my best friend. And the second RPG missile came, and it came inside the Humvee and exploded. And that's where the shrapnel went everywhere. And at that time, I was knocked unconscious. I woke up in Walter Reed Hospital.
"My family was coming in to see me. I mean family members like my brother, my mother, my sister, were coming and hugging me and kissing -- and I was like, 'Who are these people kissing me?' I didn't know who they were. And I had to learn how to walk again. I was in a wheelchair. Then I was walking with a cane. And I had to learn how to dress myself, how to eat, how to talk again, because I stutter now. You feel like you're a child in a man's body. I can't hear out of my left ear. I have a constant ringing. And my left eye is hurting because it stays dry. It doesn't -- there's no tears. And my face, the jaw is off-line. I had multiple problems with my fingers -- I can't bend my fingers. I'm constantly having neck problems -- I had a C5 (injury). I can't sleep all night. I can only sleep like three hours a day, and that's a good night for me.
"You know, it was actually easier for me if I would have died in Iraq. My neuropsychologist has told me my left side of my brain has been injured severely. So that is your ability to multi-task, to handle problems. So what I do, I watch game shows or look at crossword puzzles, and even though I'm in school or at the VA learning these processes, I do it on my own, to try to speed up my healing process. I'm trying to enhance my own ability because I'm a father. I have two kids. I have to show them that, hey, even though Daddy's not himself, you still have to work hard to achieve something."
I understand opposing the President on policy grounds. I cannot, however, get my head around people like Ferrell and company, who, in effect, tell wounded soldiers that they suffer not because President Bush thought the mission important for national security, not because the President considered Iraq a "grave and gathering danger."
No, they endure their daily ordeal because Darth Cheney and his minion Bush lied -- sending over 4,000 valiant men and women to their graves, with over 30,000 incurring wounds, in order to make their rich friends richer still.
Mssrs. Ferrell and McKay, meet Staff Sgt. Wilkerson.
What McCain Should Do Next
By Karl Rove
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Notwithstanding the hype about Barack Obama, here is where the presidential race stands: John McCain was within an average of 1.9% of his Democratic opponent in last week's daily Gallup tracking poll.
It shouldn't be this close. Sen. Obama should be way ahead. It's not that Sen. McCain has made up a lot of ground. Pollster.com shows that the Republican steadily declined from March through June as the Democratic contest dominated the news. Mr. McCain stabilized in July, and then ticked up slightly. But the most important political fact of July is that Mr. Obama has lost altitude. Gallup now projects that 23% of this year's electorate will be swing voters, more than twice the share in 2004.
It seems that each candidate is underperforming with his base. Mr. Obama's problem is that only 74% of Democrats in the latest Fox Poll support him, while Mr. McCain gets 86% of Republicans. But Mr. McCain's support lacks the same intensity Mr. Obama receives. The latest Pew poll found that 24% of voters "strongly" support Mr. Obama, compared to 17% for Mr. McCain.
Old doubts about Mr. Obama remain. In a late June Washington Post poll, 46% said Mr. Obama lacked the experience to do the job, the same number as in March, before he spent $119 million to run ads extolling himself. In February 2000, 59% said George W. Bush, then governor of Texas, had the experience to be president. That number grew as the campaign wore on. Now Mr. Obama faces new doubts over perceptions that he's arrogant, self-centered and calculating.
So what should Mr. McCain do? He's rightly raising questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be president, starting with his failure to admit that the surge in Iraq worked. Mr. McCain should stay at it, though he'll need help to make the case.
Mr. McCain was correct to seize on Mr. Obama's insinuations that the GOP would mount racist attacks against him. Now Mr. McCain needs to find ways to describe an Obama who is running on empty rhetoric. He needs to do to Mr. Obama what Walter Mondale did to Gary "Where's the Beef?" Hart in the 1984 Democratic primaries. Given Mr. Obama's thin résumé and accomplishments, this can be done, with a sustained effort.
But to win, Mr. McCain must also make a compelling case for electing John McCain. Voters trust him on terrorism and Iraq and they see him as a patriot who puts country first. But they want to know for what purpose?
In the coming weeks, he needs to lay out a bold domestic reform program. He gave a taste on energy, but with a few missteps. He should appear in front of manufacturing plants where jobs depend on affordable energy, small businesses affected by fuel prices, and farms hurt by skyrocketing fertilizer costs -- and not in front of oil rigs. He needs to describe the consequences of specific domestic policy decisions. He must explain how his proposals on energy, health care, jobs and education will make a difference for ordinary families.
Mr. McCain also needs to elevate his arguments. It's not only that he opposes tax increases and Mr. Obama favors them. Mr. McCain must also make the principled case that there should be a limit to what government can take from its citizens. This argument will appeal to a large majority of voters. The top income tax rate is 35% and, according to the Tax Foundation, 89% of Americans believe that government should take no more than 30% from anyone's paycheck.
Mr. McCain should also talk about issues that increase Republican enthusiasm and win over independents, such as earmarks and judicial activism. And he should not shy away from appeals for bipartisanship. He's done it -- and talking about it undermines Mr. Obama, who hasn't. It also explains who Mr. McCain is. Mr. McCain should welcome opportunities to go against the grain. Defending free trade in manufacturing states is gutsy and feeds his maverick, straight-talk image.
He will be pleasantly surprised to find out how many people in Ohio and elsewhere understand that their state's prosperity depends on knocking down trade barriers.
Then there's character. Mr. McCain is the most private person to run for president since Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s. He needs to share (or allow others to share) more about him, especially his faith. The McCain and Obama campaigns are mirror opposites. Mr. McCain offers little biography, while Mr. Obama is nothing but.
The Republican Party's convention next month is Mr. McCain's biggest chance to improve his posture. The best minds in his campaign should be carefully working on its script. Everyone knows conventions are show, but voters want to see if a candidate can put on a good one that rings true.
Mr. Obama has the easier path to victory: reassure a restive electorate that he's up to the job. Mr. McCain must both educate voters to his opponent's weaknesses and persuade them that he has a vision for the coming four years. This will require a disciplined, focused effort. Mr. McCain has gotten this far fighting an unscripted guerrilla campaign. But it won't get him all the way to the White House.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Notwithstanding the hype about Barack Obama, here is where the presidential race stands: John McCain was within an average of 1.9% of his Democratic opponent in last week's daily Gallup tracking poll.
It shouldn't be this close. Sen. Obama should be way ahead. It's not that Sen. McCain has made up a lot of ground. Pollster.com shows that the Republican steadily declined from March through June as the Democratic contest dominated the news. Mr. McCain stabilized in July, and then ticked up slightly. But the most important political fact of July is that Mr. Obama has lost altitude. Gallup now projects that 23% of this year's electorate will be swing voters, more than twice the share in 2004.
It seems that each candidate is underperforming with his base. Mr. Obama's problem is that only 74% of Democrats in the latest Fox Poll support him, while Mr. McCain gets 86% of Republicans. But Mr. McCain's support lacks the same intensity Mr. Obama receives. The latest Pew poll found that 24% of voters "strongly" support Mr. Obama, compared to 17% for Mr. McCain.
Old doubts about Mr. Obama remain. In a late June Washington Post poll, 46% said Mr. Obama lacked the experience to do the job, the same number as in March, before he spent $119 million to run ads extolling himself. In February 2000, 59% said George W. Bush, then governor of Texas, had the experience to be president. That number grew as the campaign wore on. Now Mr. Obama faces new doubts over perceptions that he's arrogant, self-centered and calculating.
So what should Mr. McCain do? He's rightly raising questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be president, starting with his failure to admit that the surge in Iraq worked. Mr. McCain should stay at it, though he'll need help to make the case.
Mr. McCain was correct to seize on Mr. Obama's insinuations that the GOP would mount racist attacks against him. Now Mr. McCain needs to find ways to describe an Obama who is running on empty rhetoric. He needs to do to Mr. Obama what Walter Mondale did to Gary "Where's the Beef?" Hart in the 1984 Democratic primaries. Given Mr. Obama's thin résumé and accomplishments, this can be done, with a sustained effort.
But to win, Mr. McCain must also make a compelling case for electing John McCain. Voters trust him on terrorism and Iraq and they see him as a patriot who puts country first. But they want to know for what purpose?
In the coming weeks, he needs to lay out a bold domestic reform program. He gave a taste on energy, but with a few missteps. He should appear in front of manufacturing plants where jobs depend on affordable energy, small businesses affected by fuel prices, and farms hurt by skyrocketing fertilizer costs -- and not in front of oil rigs. He needs to describe the consequences of specific domestic policy decisions. He must explain how his proposals on energy, health care, jobs and education will make a difference for ordinary families.
Mr. McCain also needs to elevate his arguments. It's not only that he opposes tax increases and Mr. Obama favors them. Mr. McCain must also make the principled case that there should be a limit to what government can take from its citizens. This argument will appeal to a large majority of voters. The top income tax rate is 35% and, according to the Tax Foundation, 89% of Americans believe that government should take no more than 30% from anyone's paycheck.
Mr. McCain should also talk about issues that increase Republican enthusiasm and win over independents, such as earmarks and judicial activism. And he should not shy away from appeals for bipartisanship. He's done it -- and talking about it undermines Mr. Obama, who hasn't. It also explains who Mr. McCain is. Mr. McCain should welcome opportunities to go against the grain. Defending free trade in manufacturing states is gutsy and feeds his maverick, straight-talk image.
He will be pleasantly surprised to find out how many people in Ohio and elsewhere understand that their state's prosperity depends on knocking down trade barriers.
Then there's character. Mr. McCain is the most private person to run for president since Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s. He needs to share (or allow others to share) more about him, especially his faith. The McCain and Obama campaigns are mirror opposites. Mr. McCain offers little biography, while Mr. Obama is nothing but.
The Republican Party's convention next month is Mr. McCain's biggest chance to improve his posture. The best minds in his campaign should be carefully working on its script. Everyone knows conventions are show, but voters want to see if a candidate can put on a good one that rings true.
Mr. Obama has the easier path to victory: reassure a restive electorate that he's up to the job. Mr. McCain must both educate voters to his opponent's weaknesses and persuade them that he has a vision for the coming four years. This will require a disciplined, focused effort. Mr. McCain has gotten this far fighting an unscripted guerrilla campaign. But it won't get him all the way to the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)