The Children Of The Revolution

THE NEW FEAR-MONGERING

2010-09-10T20:04:00.006+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Between a fundamentalist pastor’s on-again, off-again plans to barbecue the Quran and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s baffling interview on Larry King Live, it’s been an epic and instructive week in a new era of political correctness. To sum it up: Florida Pastor Terry Jones had planned to set afire scores of Qurans in a protest against Islam on the anniversary of September 11th, raising objections from nearly everyone across the political spectrum who feared that it would incite violence against Americans in the Islamic world, undercut current efforts at outreach and tarnish the principles of religious tolerance for which this country stands. He has now seemingly agreed to cancel “Burn a Quran Day” on the condition that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf find a different location for his planned Islamic outreach center. In a completely unrelated development, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf appeared on Larry King Live earlier in the week and admitted that, had he known the public response to his plans to build an Islamic center a few blocks away from Ground Zero would be so controversial he might have sought a different location. He emphasized, however, that he simply cannot cancel the plans at this stage out of concern that it would fuel radical Islamic hatred against America and put the country in danger.

It’s certainly understandable that most Americans are either scratching their heads or shrugging their shoulders in reaction not only to the sequence of events themselves, but to the competing narratives coming from politicians, the media and private interest groups, each one seemingly divining a different moral to the complicated story, for which the common thread seems to be the antagonizing of Islam. The president and General Patraeus argued that the Quran burning would incite violence against Americans and bolster al Qaeda recruiting efforts. Sarah Palin opined that Terry Jones’ plans, while perfectly legal, were in bad taste and un-American, “much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.” While the media has tried to be above the fray, a consensus does seem to have developed among the various news outlets: due to the actions of one small town, Southern fundamentalist pastor and the Islamophobic Americans who disapprove of the Ground Zero mosque, all of the hard work by presidents Bush and Obama to assure the Muslim world that the War on Terror is not a war on Islam may come to naught.

In this blogger’s opinion, the waters have become far too muddied. I opposed Pastor Jones’ plan to burn the Quran, not out of fear of a Muslim backlash, but because as a Christian and a freedom-loving American I find the image of my fellow citizens setting books on fire out of religious hatred embarrassing and difficult to stomach. Some have argued that his demonstration is aimed only at radical Islam and is therefore no different than South Park’s satirical and provocative depictions of Mohammed or the Danish cartoons. Forgive my skepticism, but a man who writes a book entitled “Islam is of the Devil,” if he takes issue only with radical Islam, either has terrible business sense or is being disingenuous. And even if Burn a Quran Day were aimed only at Islamic extremism, I find it hard to believe he could not have found a more creative and less ill-conceived means of getting his message across. While I agree he has every right to go through with this distasteful display should he so decide, I would hope that he and his congregation would find another, more enlightened way of demonstrating.

As for the Ground Zero mosque, I haven’t come down either way. I’ve been of the opinion that, while September 11th holds significance for every American, the decision should be left up to the state and city of New York and its residents. I have no issue with a mosque so close to Ground Zero, but I would have an issue with a mosque run and bankrolled by fundamentalists sympathetic to those that launched the attacks against us at such a sensitive site. Indeed, I’ve become more and more suspicious of Imam Abdul Rauf’s real intentions the longer the circus surrounding his outreach center plans went on. His comments that America is an “accessory” to September 11th and his outrageous claims that America has the blood of many more innocent Muslims on its hands that al Qaeda are troubling for a man who has repeatedly asserted that he wishes to honor the memory of the victims of the September 11th attacks. Moreover I could not understand why a rational man who insisted his mission was sensitivity and outreach to the non-Muslim American community would prolong such a clearly painful debate in the very community to which he wished to minister. But what really turned me off about the Imam were his pretensions that he did not anticipate such an explosive response to his outreach center plans and, even more absurd, that if he were to cancel them now it would only encourage further Islamic radicalization in the Middle East and invite violence against the US. Which brings me to my main argument and what I believe to be the real lesson drawn from all this nonsense.

A lot has been said over the last nine years about how we have waged and should wage the War on Terror. Neo-conservatives have argued that Americans must give up some civil liberties for the sake of security while we take the fight to the enemy. Liberals have by and large criticized this as allowing the enemy to alter our way of life and needlessly erode our essential freedoms. Ironically, liberals now find themselves in the position of arguing the same things as neo-conservatives but with a different tone. Rather than defending us from radical Islam’s violent response to our fight against them, liberals are concerned about defending us from radical Islam’s violent response to our way of life and essential freedoms! In many ways this is far more insidious than the simpler line taken by neo-conservatives. Attempting to silence the (distasteful) exercise of one’s free speech rights out of fear of what violent Islamic extremists might do is corrosive to liberty. Just as demanding that exercising one's freedom of religion in a deliberately provacative manner should be universally approved of on the premise that it will invite violence from Islamic extremists if it is not is corrosive to liberty.
I
What is less often said is this: perhaps Americans shouldn’t be held responsible for the response of radical Islamic extremists, but rather radical Islamic extremists should be held responsible for their own response. Taking it a step further, those in the mainstream Muslim community who frequently argue that they condemn such violent responses might also look at the role they have to play in combating the extremist elements in their communities, just as Christians have rightly been criticized for the acts of their fundamentalist adherents, both past and present, not only in this country but across the world. If a group of people are not held to account for not only preaching but acting on their belief that anyone who disagrees with or offends their faith should be silenced or, worse yet, be killed, then this problem will never go away but merely grow larger. Our response as free citizens cannot be to change our way of life to appease those blackmailing us with violence, and any such argument (particularly when made by liberals) is entirely inappropriate. If we learn one lesson from these insane events, it’s that we ought to frame our opposition to or support of particular American experiences in American terms rather than in terms of our fears, rational or otherwise, of those who seek the ruin of freedom as we know it.

LETTERS FROM A SPOILED AMERICAN BRAT

2010-09-03T19:06:00.004+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Eugene Robinson has had it with American voters who, in his words, are “acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.” In his recent piece in the Washington Post, Mr. Robinson posits that Americans may benefit from a good old-fashioned trip the political woodshed so that we may better appreciate the fact that quick-fixes to our most serious national problems are impossible. This childish mentality, he argues, is at the heart of the political whirlwind that threatens to blow scores of Democrats from Congress and replace them with a Republican majority no better equipped to handle our current state of affairs than their liberal foes. Of course Mr. Robinson insists that his assessment is non-partisan in nature and has nothing to do with his well-known liberal predilections. While I acknowledge there is some truth to Mr. Robinson’s assessment that many Americans do regularly fall for the populist “quick fix” claptrap peddled by political snake oil salesmen, I disagree that this dynamic is largely to blame for the Democrats’ imminent, Icarus-like plummet back to earth. And, also unlike Mr. Robinson, I’m willing to disclose that my political views, correct as they are, heavily inform my argument.

To say that the most visible grass-roots campaign responsible for the Democrats’ inevitable political misfortunes, the Tea Party, is driven by a desire for quick-fixes or get-rich-quick schemes is laughable in the extreme. Their platform consists almost entirely of austerity measures that promise none of the entitlement or stimulus sweeteners that the Eugene Robinsons of the world have long championed and which, often with bipartisan support, have left the country in its current state of economic and fiscal decrepitude. At best and by their own open admission, Tea Party sympathizers like Paul Ryan hope to implement policies which, if enacted today, will get the country on track for fiscal solvency by mid-century. Hardly a quick fix, but certainly better than the prospects Americans face under continued Democratic leadership.

Mr. Robinson seems unable to confront the fundamental truth underlying the current political mood: that when it comes to promises of an “easy way out” and the populist low-road, liberals are and always have been the usual suspects, and Obama is without doubt the granddaddy of the quick-fix. Unfortunately for them and contrary to Mr. Robinson’s assertion, the American people are, at least for the time being, wising up and demanding more from their government. And who can blame them? When the Obama administration pushes through a $787 billion stimulus package that it promises will hold unemployment under 8% only to see current heights of 9.6%, the expensive quick-fix is debunked. When the White House touts a delusional “Summer of Recovery” that has seen a downturn driving some economists to openly talk about a double-dip recession, the American people rightly lose confidence in their leadership. When Obama’s campaign rhetoric promised that by sheer force of his singular personality he would make America likeable again on the world-stage was followed by continued attacks on American citizens by Islamic extremists and newly-incited animosity against us by our allies, the flim-flam operation begins to fall apart.

There is a powerful, primal emotional response driving the backlash against the Democrats, but it has little to do with a search for quick-fixes and much to do with an electorate fed up with such empty promises. Those leading the movement for change this November are distinguished by the seriousness with which they intend to address our nation’s problems, rather than the politics-as-usual approach that has created them. Americans should be commended for their firm grounding this election season, not chastised by an angry pundit unable to comprehend the overwhelming failure of his own policy preferences.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

2010-01-05T16:19:00.009+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

To the Editor of the New York Times Editorial Page:

In Response to "What's Our Line" by Michael Kinsley.

Michael Kinsley unnecessarily complicates the issue of detention vs. constitutional protection in the realm of anti-terror policy by arguing for the US border as a line of demarcation. Furthermore, he casually glosses over the fact that the United States is in fact at war with al Qaeda and other organized non-state actors by his suggestion that treating such non-uniformed enemy combatants (acting in clear violation of the Geneva Convention) caught on American soil as prisoners of war is a "judgment call."

I'll take the opportunity to clarify the issue for Mr. Kinsley. Foreign nationals that we are fortunate enough to detain on American soil prior to carrying out acts of terror warrant detention and interrogation, not constitutional protection. Doing so is to confer upon them a frivolous privilege, not a fundamental right. Mr. Kinsley equates Timothy McVeigh and Nidal Hasan with Umar Abdulmatallab and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. This is not an apt comparison. McVeigh and Hasan were US citizens and, despite the acts they committed, were and are entitled to constitutional protections, including the right to an attorney, a civilian trial and the right to remain silent. Furthermore there is little evidence that McVeigh or Hasan were acting in concert with organized state or non-state actors or carrying out attacks as part of a larger conflict being waged against the United States. Is drawing such a line "absurd," as Mr. Kinsley suggests?

Clarity should be brought to the debate over civilian trials for captured enemy combatants as well. The concern is not chiefly that obviously guilty mass murderers will be let off on a technicality, although that is a remote but ugly possibility (particularly when suspects who had previously been held as enemy combatants are brought into civilian court), but that it misses a vital chance for intelligence gathering by allowing the suspects to hide behind the Fifth Amendment. When an opportunity to interrogate a terrorist who has either been detained prior to or, God forbid, after carrying out an attack on the United States presents itself, it should be taken. These individuals can provide some of the most crucial, usable intelligence available that will save lives.

As American citizens we must demand that our government maintain a coherent, consistent strategy to fulfill its constitutional obligation to protect us. Calling the means at hand to combat the existential threats to our liberty "absurd" is not useful, and suggests a lack of seriousness on the part of the one who does so.

A CONSISTENT ANTI-TERROR POLICY, PLEASE

2010-01-04T23:39:00.004+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Charles Krauthammer penned an op-ed on Saturday that brilliantly illustrates the ridiculous dichotomy of the current administration’s anti-terror policy. This insight gives one an impression of a tangled and inconsistent approach to combating violent extremism that warrants a dramatic overhaul.

Krauthammer points out that, under the current administration, foreign nationals detained on American soil for participating in acts of terrorism, be they preparatory (collecting bomb-making materials) or final (setting off a failed explosive device aboard an airliner), have been accorded Constitutional protections, among which are the right to an attorney, the right to remain silent, and the right to trial in a civilian court. This is illustrated by the gradual “decommissioning” of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, as well as the treatment of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be “Christmas Day Bomber” now in custody.

In stark contrast, the Obama administration has opted to continue in large part the policy of the Bush administration in its contingency operations overseas; that is, capturing or killing those involved in acts of terrorism, be they preparatory (training camps) or final (setting off bombs in crowded marketplaces) by use of military force. American predator drones routinely end the careers of up-and-coming jihadists in countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and, as we now know, Yemen. Those extremists who are captured are turned over to American military or intelligence officials for exhaustive interrogation and indefinite detention, whereby they are squeezed like a proverbial lemon for every drop of usable intelligence they can provide. There are no lawyers, and there is certainly no Fifth Amendment.

So what accounts for the radically disparate treatment of extremists unfortunate enough to be operating in Pakistan and extremists lucky enough to be caught in the act on American soil? Some argue that anyone, be they American citizens or foreign nationals, is protected by our Constitution as soon as they set foot in the United States. But that is a separate debate that misses the point entirely. When talking about foreign national, violent extremists apprehended on American soil, one has to ask themselves the fundamental question of whether they believe the United States is at war with terrorism. If the answer is yes, then not only American but international legal precedent is clear: it allows for the military detention of these individuals, as they have clearly violated the terms of the Geneva Convention by targeting civilians and waging war out of uniform. If we choose to extend non-US citizens apprehended in the United States for acts of terrorism Constitutional protections, we are granting them a frivolous privilege, not a fundamental right.

The bottom line is that the administration needs to choose whether it treats terrorism as a law enforcement issue or a national security issue. It cannot, unfortunately, have it both ways. The United States must be consistent in its battle with violent extremism, not conducting military detentions overseas and civilian trials in the US. The current system is illogical and unsustainable, and it betrays President Obama’s discomfort with having to deal with the issue at all.

DISPLAYING OUR BIASES

2009-10-26T19:06:00.007+02:00

BY SEACHRANAI

I recently saw a diagram (see here) on a friend’s computer and was immediately impressed by the concept. The graph, compiled by some artistically talented individuals from across the pond, is a visual representation of the archetypical “left versus right”. Off the bat the author publishing this graph reveals that he does in fact have a liberal biased, and also acknowledges that it is not a truly representative depiction of political ideology (a representative model being biaxial, see diagram pictured to the right).

I
I think it is an interesting narrative however, on some of the biases that underpin our individual political leanings. While impressed by the concept of this visualization, I must say I very much disagree with many of the generalizations that are made about left and right. I believe that most of these errors, as I would see them, in the diagram’s classifications stem from the biases we all have towards people of opposing ideology. The remainder is born of ignorance – and by this I do not mean any specific lack of intelligence on the author’s part, but a lack of experience that prevents the author from making a meaningful comparison.

I
Right now what we are really looking at is one person’s visualization of how they view their own ideology, and a contrasting visualization of how they view people of a factious ideology. I could spend hours deconstructing this diagram and rewriting it to fit my personal worldview, but in the end I fear all I will do is replace one bias visualization with another.

I
I would like to point out what I believe are a few of the more obvious errors in the model, and would then ask for your input as well. Perhaps by combining multiple viewpoints, we may be able to come to a consensus that creates a meaningful tool.

I
The diagram makes the assertion that the goal of a government on the left is personal freedom, and the goal of a government on the right is economic freedom. I take exception with this immediately, as the two are one in the same. One would argue that not allowing a person to walk around nude infringes that person’s personal freedom, while taxing someone infringes economic freedom. However, the same people will tell you that it is not an infringement on personal freedom to outlaw guns. The line is not drawn on economic or social lines; it is drawn on what each group defines as acceptable behavior.

I
The next most obvious flaw in this representation is the depiction of the ideal family on the left and the right. The nurturing parent on the left has a relationship with their child built on respect and trust, where as the strict parent on the right has a relationship build on respect and fear? I come from a family I am certain the author of this diagram would consider to the right, but I would most definitely classify my parents as nurturing, and our relationship based on trust more than fear. At the same time, I know many people who would define their households they were raised in as liberal, and would most definitely not consider them nurturing. This is one of the diagram’s classifications that I believe is born of ignorance and lack of experience. I don’t believe political ideology fosters one parenting style or another – rather, the values on which the family focuses are different. Parents can be both strict and nurturing. Responsibility is really where the difference lies. I would think the family on left would see nurturing a child as the responsibility of the community, not the parents. In contrast, I believe that nurturing the child in a conservative home is strictly a parental responsibility (to the extent that parents often take offense when unsolicited nurturing comes from exterior sources).

I
Furthermore, the diagram argues the left family teaches children to ask questions. I think this is fundamentally incorrect. Skepticism is a specifically individualistic trait, and from my experience is usually frowned upon in left ideology. If you want to break this down into a more fair representation, it should ask whom does each side teach you to question? The left encourages you to question other individuals, but is less likely to challenge authority or society. On the other hand, the right encourages trust in specific individuals, but is skeptical of trusting society and authority.

Anyway, those are a few of my more relevant thoughts. Again, I could go on for hours, and would love to pick other peoples minds as to what an accurate chart would really look like. Please let me know your thoughts.

STRATEGIC BLUNDER

2009-10-23T22:13:00.003+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

By now everyone is well aware of the concerted effort by the White House to marginalize Fox News and other conservative voices of opposition in the media. You know this because the White House has made no secret of it; nay, they have gone out of their way to make sure you know it. In a new strategy to “defend” the White House’s agenda and message, senior aides and officials have been touring the major Sunday news shows (except for Fox News, of course) and delivering cold pricklies about the legitimacy of said cable news network. David Axelrod has characterized Fox as “not really a news station.” Said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in an interview on CNN with John King (a legitimate news organization):

“I suppose the way to look at it, and the way we, the President looks at it, we look at it is it's [Fox News] not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that's a different take. And more importantly is not to have the CNN's and the others in the world basically be led and following Fox as if that what they're trying to do is a legitimate news organization in the sense of both sides' sense of a valued opinion.”

But the most in-depth and telling statements have come from White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, who cautioned Americans to “not pretend they’re [Fox News] a news organization like CNN.” Considering the blatantly leftward slant of CNN and its founder, Ted Turner, I would recommend Anita and Rahm link up to compare notes as to whether that statement amounts to a flawed comparison. Dunn took her criticism even further by saying:

“The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological… what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party.”

This tactic on the part of the White House is doomed to miserable failure, and I disdain it not so much out of any ideological sympathies, but rather on purely intellectual grounds. This strategy is dumb. First, the argument that Fox News is illegitimate because of a partisan slant is disingenuous, ridiculous and just plain whiny. It doesn’t stand up to even the most minute of intelligent scrutiny. Second, the White House can offer no solution to these complaints they’ve raised without sounding like they are suppressing free speech. As even some left-leaning news media outlets have begun to point out, the White House strategy smacks of the sort of hardball played by the Dark Lord of politics himself, Richard Nixon.

To say that Fox News has a partisan slant is not necessarily an earth-shattering revelation. Indeed, most rational people understand that. Just as they understand that most of the rest of the 24-hour news outlets available to them, such as MSNBC and CNN, tend to lean decidedly left. So what is the goal for the White House? To inform the public and steer them away from Fox News? Please. People know what they get when they turn it on, and they still watch in droves, more so than any other news programming out there. All that is accomplished by this blatant, bungling assault is establishing Fox News as the leading voice of opposition to the Obama administration and laying bare the White House’s pathetic inability to cope with that lonely voice of criticism. Furthermore, by Rahm Emanuel’s flimsy definition of what constitutes a “news organization,” every major media outlet save perhaps C-SPAN (sans commentary) is disqualified. The American people don’t mind having their news colored with comment and opinion. In fact, they seem to demand it. Otherwise Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck would be penniless.

President Obama, who won election on the promise of bridging the partisan gap, stands to lose a great deal from this confrontation. Fox News isn’t going to roll over and play dead for the White House as other news organizations have. They intend to fight back, and this should concern the president’s political advisors greatly. The president may be the president, but even he can’t saturate Americans with his message 24-7, as Roger Ailes can. And Obama may be antagonizing his biggest ally by bullying Fox News in this undignified fashion: the media at large. The White House’s ham-handed attempt to exclude Fox News from having access to interview pay czar Ken Feinberg with the complicity of ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN backfired when those four news outlets refused to participate in the interviews unless Fox News was also allowed in (see here). After the rebuke, the White House backed off and has since refrained from overt attempts to deny Fox News access. This event was instructive: President Obama, for once, cannot count on the support of his news media sympathizers to ostracize Fox. In fact, he has succeeded in broadening criticism of his tactic to those very organizations, who are speaking out against the executive branch bullying journalists.

For now it looks like the White House may be pumping the brakes on its attack strategy against Fox, which is wise politically. How they ever convinced themselves that it would work in the first place is beyond comprehension and reflects even more poorly on Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. They have cost their president some serious political capital with this maneuver at a time when he needs just about all he can get.

SHAME ON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE COMMITTEE

2009-10-09T15:47:00.003+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

The Nobel Peace Prize has officially jumped the shark this morning as news comes out that it has been awarded to President Barack Obama. For what, I have no idea. I’ll venture to guess that even some Democrats are left scratching their heads as to what seminal accomplishment this man has yet made to recommend him for such a distinction. Part of the citation from the Nobel Committee is as follows:

“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”

You’ll note that the award seems to have been given despite the fact that none of the items cited have borne fruit. The fact that Obama was awarded the Peace Prize is even more shameful when viewed in light of the other contenders. Zimbabwe’s Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, whose opposition movement to President Robert Mugabe’s regime was brutally suppressed and who himself was arrested and beaten on his way to a prayer rally. His vocal and courageous opposition led to the creation of a coalition government under Mugabe, the first significant challenge to his autocratic hold on power since he assumed control in 1987. Dr. Sima Samar, another leading contender, fled Afghanistan with her son after the Communist regime arrested her husband in 1984. She began an organization to provide medical care for Afghan refugees while living in exile for almost a decade, returning to Afghanistan in 2002 to assume a cabinet post in the interim government. She eventually became Minister for Women’s Affairs, until being forced to resign following death threats from Islamic extremists for her challenges to Sharia. She has since fought tirelessly for human rights, in particular women’s rights, in Afghanistan.

And yet the award went to a president who is nine months into his first term with nothing to show for it. It is absolutely outrageous and shameful, and most of all it is insulting to the other potential laureates who suffered imprisonment, torture, and threats of death for years struggling to bring real change and basic human rights to their respective nations. It is a transparent political gesture that, I believe, will seriously backfire on President Obama as the public has the time to digest its implications. Seeing him accept such as award (just days after Saturday Night Live lampooned him for his indecision and lack of accomplishment) will be sure to elicit at least some measure of confusion not only from Americans but the world at large.
I

Shame on the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

PARADISE LOST?

2009-09-30T16:51:00.007+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Thomas Friedman penned a column in the New York Times today (see here) that waxes nostalgic for a by-gone era of American politics, one before Al Gore gave birth to the internet and unleashed the scourge of the “blogosphere” upon us all. An era in which there were no fringe elements in American society; no lunatics, fundamentalists or dissident groups. An era in which political speech was moderated by temperance and attention to the issues and, at worst, issues of character, rather than the legitimacy of the President of the United States. Mr. Friedman harkens back to this time out of concern for the well-being of our political system and the very safety of our sitting, duly-elected president, Barack Obama.

It is my unhappy duty to report, Mr. Friedman, that your idyllic Eden of American politics never existed, and sadly never will. Politics in this nation has never been civil, though the attempt to make it so has been an expedient for politicians from both parties to score cheap points. It has been ugly, deceitful, replete with the basest of character attacks. It has destroyed lives. Since the election of 1800, when Federalist newspapers charged that Jefferson’s election to the presidency would lead to the “teaching of murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest,” to the election of 1964 when President Johnson suggested in a none too subtle fashion that Barry Goldwater would get countless Americans killed by starting a nuclear war, American presidential politics has been a gruesome, amoral sport.

I too despise the elements of our society that cross the line from ugly sport to treason. I am ashamed of them. I would see those who voice their intent to harm our president prosecuted and imprisoned. But do not delude yourself, Mr. Friedman, for the sake of your own political sympathies, into believing that the concept of an American “we” has ever been a mainstay in our politics, barring exceptional times of great national distress. All Americans would like to see a more civil tone in politics, but the cacophony of vitriol is the price of a free republic that allows fools from all persuasions to speak freely. To propose the imposition of a remedy to it is to trample the Constitution and the system of government you would seek to protect. We've been down that road before, if you'll recall.

As Jefferson himself said in his Inaugural Address, after suffering some of the most despicable attacks one could conceive, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

GO BIG OR GO HOME

2009-09-09T19:37:00.003+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Tonight, Barack Obama is giving what some pundits are calling the most critical address of his presidency. He will go before a joint session of Congress and make a final sales pitch for his as yet elusive vision of healthcare reform. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has promised that the speech will answer a wide array of concerns on the part of Americans, such as how the president’s proposal will ensure the security of their current insurance plans, protect Medicare coverage for seniors, and much more. With both the media and the American peoples’ expectations high, and the White House now validating those expectations, it is safe to say that if the president does not deliver tonight, not only will the public option wither on the vine, but Obama’s presidency may do the same. Clearly the president knows the stakes. He has three options, each of which carry equally dangerous consequences.

First, he can back off of the public option and instead endorse a co-op based plan, acquiescing to the political winds and positioning himself for success. This will lose him support among his liberal base and place him in direct opposition to key members of his own party in the House and Senate, who have sworn that they will not vote for healthcare reform without a public option. Democratic in-fighting will benefit Republicans, even if Obama eventually signs a co-op bill.

Second, the president can employ his famous rhetorical skill to restate his current position in a new way. That is to say, that he prefers the Congress pass a public option but will not say whether or not he will veto a bill without it. This is perhaps the safest route politically, as it keeps his options open and allows him to wait out the debate as he has been doing. Nevertheless, to do so would make him look weak and the effort would likely be transparent, demonstrating an inability to rise to the expectations his own White House has set. It would take incredible eloquence and double-speak, not to mention some media complicity, to pull such a tactic off. Of course, Obama has all three.

The third option would be for President Obama to “go big or go home,” in the parlance of our times. He could stand before Congress and the American people and declare unwavering commitment to the public option, throw his full support behind it and ask Congress to send a reform bill to him that includes it with all possible speed. This would energize his base and show strength and leadership. However, it pits him against public opinion, which has shifted seismically against a government-run option, and would force his party to use their majorities in both houses of Congress to ram the legislation through without significant bipartisan support, something they are loathe to do. Additionally, if the public option legislation should fail, Obama will be faced with a choice: signing a bill without the public option after committing to it, or vetoing it and risk sending healthcare reform into a downward spiral.

My instincts tell me, and this is just one man’s opinion, that President Obama will take the third and perhaps riskiest route. He will employ every political weapon in his considerable arsenal to arm-twist and coerce hesitant Democratic and even Republican legislators, and he will double his efforts on turning around public opinion with a new assault on public option critics. Indeed, he can do no less, as he is staking his presidency on this one issue alone. He will do whatever it takes to get Congress to pass a bill that he can claim as a political victory, because anything short of that would turn his already dwindling political capital to dust. He will suffer, I’m sure, from a negative reaction from the public should he sign such legislation into law, but I think that’s a risk he’s willing to take to stay alive politically. Make no mistake, it is a great risk: Democrats could stand to lose their majorities in one or both houses of Congress in 2010. But let’s not forget that President Obama believes strongly in the public option. It is more than a political battle, but one of ideology and doing what he believes is in the essential good of the nation, wrong as he may be.

Whether or not the president decides to “go big,” tonight’s address will be interesting to watch.

BLAMING BUSH FOR DEFICIT IS DISINGENUOUS

2009-08-25T21:53:00.008+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Today’s deficit figures from both the White House and the Congressional Budget Office are not pretty. In fact, they are record-setting. The administration’s report projects the 2009 deficit at $1.58 trillion. That figure jumps to a staggering $9 trillion over ten years, though projections that far out are often unreliable. This is an unequivocal financial quagmire for the Obama administration, which at this very moment is seeking to push through healthcare reform legislation that could cost an additional $1 trillion over ten years, with no sustainable source of funding yet identified.

When George W Bush left office in January of this year, he bequeathed a deficit of $1.3 trillion to his successor. The size of that deficit was largely due to the $700 billion federal bailout legislation that the Bush administration supported, without which he would likely have ended on a still mammoth but much more manageable $600 billion deficit figure.

The reaction on the part of Obama’s supporters has largely been according to formula: the record-high Obama deficit is Bush’s fault. House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt put it this way: “Today's deficits are a legacy of the Bush Administration and of the worst recession since the 1930s, which began in December 2007 on the watch of President Bush. Most of this year's deficit is a carry-over from his administration.” With all due respect to Congressman Spratt and his Democratic colleagues, this argument is disingenuous and, quite frankly, immature.

If we are to blame the $1.3 trillion Bush deficit that Obama inherited for the $1.58 trillion figure now projected, we have to wonder what the president would have done differently to have started his administration on a more financially sound note. The fact is that, as a United States Senator, he voted in favor of the $700 billion federal bailout that made up the lion’s share of the Bush budget deficit he now decries. His ardent support of the $787 billion stimulus package earlier this year further demonstrates that he is more than willing to double down on even more wasteful, bailout-style spending on the federal level. His administration and his party also support the continuation of another big ticket budget item from the Bush era: prescription drug benefits.

While the president never misses an opportunity to point out the fiscal negligence of the Republicans during the Bush administration, he and his party have had ample opportunity to prove themselves equal to or worse than their predecessors in the realm of economic policy and crafting a responsible budget. The new deficit figures are irrefutable proof that they have outdone Republican largesse without breaking a sweat. And even in the face of a staggering $1.58 trillion deficit they show no signs of backing down on healthcare reform that, as the president fallaciously claims will be deficit neutral, you can be sure was not included in the recent figures.

The country has outgrown whatever taste it had for Bush-bashing and, amazingly, expects an administration promising change to reverse whatever fiscal backsliding it continues to accuse its predecessors of. The president and his party need to stop laying the blame at the feet of Bush and man up. We want solutions to our fiscal problems, not excuses and additional problems.

PROMISES, PROMISES

2009-08-03T21:50:00.007+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Liberals rail against trickle-down economics as starving the middle class while lining the pockets of the wealthy, but the policies of the Obama administration have proven to be little more than a new kind of trickle-down economics, with the money (our money) being doled out to the political elite in Washington rather than the wealthy on Wall Street and, supposedly, showered back down upon us commoners in the form of services and subsidies. But if conservative trickle-down economics is as bad as its critics claim, then liberal trickle-down economics is an unholy disaster. The reason is that businesses have to pay their employees and put money in their investors’ pockets, they have to provide competitive services, and they have to turn a profit to survive. Government doesn’t have to do any of these things. In fact, it seldom does. So when do regular Americans feel the trickle? The answer is simply, we don’t, because Washington will never turn on the faucet.

Our heads still pound from the hangover of an impotent $787 billion stimulus package, and now we are faced with talk of health care reform that could total $1 trillion over a ten year period if passed today. Meanwhile, the recession is still keeping Americans out of work and drastically streamlining their individual and family budgets. Regardless, government continues to grow and spend with little regard to the fiscal discipline regular Americans have had to learn the hard way. This is unsustainable, and the president knows it.

Conservatives at large and this blog in particular (see here) have been saying it since President Obama was just President-Elect Obama. With the big-government agenda of this liberal administration, there is no way they can avoid raising taxes without risking financial ruin. Nevertheless, Barack Obama promised that the cornerstone of his presidency would be insulating the middle class from economic hardship by refusing to raise taxes on any American earning less than $250,000 a year. His exact words were:

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

It’s sounding more and more like President Obama is bracing the public for a broken promise. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said yesterday on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos that "we’re going to have to do what’s necessary” to bring down deficits. Stephanopoulos pressed Geithner several times on the president’s tax hike pledge and each time the Treasury Secretary refused to take the option of raising taxes on the middle class off the table. Larry Summers, the National Economic Council Director, made similarly ominous statements in response to the same question. Said Summers, “There is a lot, though, there is a lot that can happen over time. It's never a good idea to absolutely rule things out no matter what.”

Does this mean the administration plans to go the way of George Bush in 1990 and break its vow on taxes? Not necessarily. In fact, I would be surprised if it did. What it does mean, however, is that the administration recognizes economic reality and knows that someone is going to have to foot the bill for its reckless spending spree. These simultaneous and suspiciously similar comments by Geithner and Summers are most likely trial balloons floated by the administration to gauge public reaction to the possibility of a middle class tax hike. It’s even more likely that the administration plans to let talk of such a tax hike circulate until the mood is such that the American people will breathe a gracious sigh of relief when President Obama, ever the savior, instead proposes a tax hike on the wealthiest tax bracket, sparing the middle class from such a burden.

Let’s be clear: President Obama knows that to break his promise would be political suicide. His sights aren’t set on the middle class, but rather the wealthy and corporations. His track record speaks clearly. But a tax hike on these segments of society would be just as disastrous economically as a middle class tax hike would be politically. A recession that, according to the administration, is just turning the corner despite continuing high unemployment, may be prolonged or even worsened by higher prices, lower wages and yet more layoffs when the highest earners are forced to shell out more on top of their already heavy obligations. But hey, it's a small price to pay for us to get another four glorious years of President Obama in 2012.

DON'T BE FOOLED: THE PUBLIC OPTION WILL BECOME THE ONLY OPTION

2009-07-15T16:42:00.007+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

As the White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress push with ever-increasing force to pass a comprehensive overhaul of the American health care system, the point that has generated the most contention has been a public option for health coverage. A government-run health insurance option has been the dream of many liberals for decades, and never before have they been as close as they are now to achieving it. But as always, they rely on speed and secrecy to enact their agenda, as the American public would surely abandon them were the full details to be made known. Indeed, polling shows that the majority of Americans, while dreamily supporting a health care overhaul, are vehemently opposed to the necessary cost of such a plan (currently projected at $1 trillion over ten years). And knowing the cost is half the battle. The other half is exposing the plan itself for the disaster that it represents.

First and foremost, we must deal with the fact that government-run anything is an inevitable disaster (Social Security, Medicaid, Amtrak, Congress). The supporters of the public option chide these claims by saying that, if the plan is destined for such abysmal failure, why are private insurers so worried about being able to compete? I would like you to examine that argument for just how ignorant it is and what a lose-lose situation it represents for the American people. Consider: either the public plan is a disaster and your tax dollars go to waste while private insurers continue to operate as they do now, making the entire exercise merely a colossal waste of time, resources and capital, or it is successful and private insurers are bankrupted and forced out of business, establishing a government-run monopoly on health care that even most Democrats are loathe to endorse.

But why, you may ask, would private insurers necessarily be hounded out of business by a public option? It is just an option, after all, not compulsory. Well, let’s examine the particulars of the plan. As currently proposed by its supporters, the public option would provide affordable health coverage by mandating that it be charged less (by most estimates at least 20% less) than private insurers by health care providers such as clinics, hospitals, and family doctors. Additionally, they intend to make this plan "affordable" for the lower and middle class Americans who it is intended to provide relief for by taxing private health insurers and the wealthiest income bracket to pay for it. Consider: private health insurers will be forced to pay to subsidize their chief competitor, Public Health Care, while at the same time operating at a competitive disadvantage by paying more to health care providers.

Additionally, money is money, and as much as the government may want you to believe that they can wave a magic wand and exempt themselves from market forces, this is not the case. Hospitals and health care services cost what they cost. If the government is charged less money for services provided as part of their plan, the profit lost from that transaction has to be made up somehow in order for health care providers to remain solvent. The only way to make up the losses in the market are, as always, to reduce pay or benefits for employees, layoff employees, or charge more for their services. The government has the power to insulate itself from the negative effects of the last option, as it can, through legislation, attempt to mandate its costs at a fixed rate (which only makes the problem worse, of course). This would leave private health insurance providers to pick up the lion’s share of the cost for health care services, disproportionate to the burden shouldered by government. Not only that, but bear in mind that private insurers are among those that legislators intend to foot the bill for the public plan by way of taxation, so they end up subsidizing public health care twice while suffering the ill-effects of its operation.

What means will private insurers have to remain not merely competitive but profitable if they are saddled with this ridiculously disproportionate financial obligation to keep their competitor’s doors open? Well, the same options that health care providers will have to stay afloat: salary/benefit reduction, layoffs, and increased costs to the consumer. From here it’s easy to see why private insurers will likely end up bankrupt and out of business, leaving the public option as the only option. Not only that, but in the worst case scenario, with the government plan assuming primacy, the lower costs charged by health care providers (now the only costs) would have to either go up to compensate for the massive losses those providers would stand to suffer, putting us right back where we started, or remain low and drive the quality of our health care services down.

There are other issues at stake here as well, such as the exodus of skilled, American-trained doctors from the United States to other countries that will offer higher wages (remember health care providers will have to cut costs no matter what) and the inevitability of most employer-furnished health care defaulting to the public option. But by far the most detrimental effect of the public option is the elimination of private insurance providers altogether, no matter what the White House or Congress tells you.

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!

2009-07-04T23:27:00.007+03:00

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

I
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

I
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Georgia:

Button Gwinnett

Lyman Hall

George Walton

North Carolina:

William Hooper

Joseph Hewes

John Penn

South Carolina:

Edward Rutledge

Thomas Heyward, Jr.

Thomas Lynch, Jr.

Arthur Middleton

Massachusetts:

John Hancock

Samuel Adams

John Adams

Robert Treat Paine

Elbridge Gerry

Maryland:

Samuel Chase

William Paca

Thomas Stone

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:

George Wythe

Richard Henry Lee

Thomas Jefferson

Benjamin Harrison

Thomas Nelson, Jr.

Francis Lightfoot

LeeCarter Braxton

Pennsylvania:

Robert Morris

Benjamin Rush

Benjamin Franklin

John Morton

George Clymer

James Smith

George Taylor

James Wilson

George Ross

Delaware:

Caesar Rodney

George Read

Thomas McKean

New York:

William Floyd

Philip Livingston

Francis Lewis

Lewis Morris

New Jersey:

Richard Stockton

John Witherspoon

Francis Hopkinson

John Hart

Abraham Clark

New Hampshire:

Josiah Bartlett

William Whipple

Matthew Thornton

Rhode Island:

Stephen Hopkins

William Ellery

Connecticut:

Roger Sherman

Samuel Huntington

William Williams

TSA CONDUCTS ILLEGAL DETENTION OF CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY WORKER

2009-06-30T16:07:00.008+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

On March 29, 2009, Campaign for Liberty employee Steve Bierfeldt was detained by the TSA at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport in Missouri. The reason for his detention: he was carrying a metal box containing over $4,700 in cash in his carry-on bag. TSA uniformed officers pulled Bierfeldt into a windowless room, where they questioned him as to the source of the cash. Bierfeldt cooperated with the officers in showing them the cash, detailing the amount of cash in the box, and answering other questions that the officers could deduce by legal search and viewing his identification. However, Bierfeldt repeatedly questioned the officers as to whether he was legally required to tell them where the cash had come from. They responded by demanding that he answer the question and threatening to take him “downtown” to the police station, where he would be interrogated by the DEA and FBI. The officers clearly threatened him and used profanity and forceful speech. Little did the officers know, Bierfeldt was recording the entire incident on his iPhone. You can listen to the audio here. CNN covered this (albeit in broad strokes) as well (see here).

Bierfeldt’s detention was illegal. Laws and statutes governing searches and detentions on airline flights do not include possession of large sums of cash as one of the criteria for detention by TSA. Furthermore, the TSA officers were obliged by law to answer Bierfeldt’s repeated question of whether he was legally required to answer them as to the source of the cash in his possession; in other words, the officers were supposed to inform him of his rights. They did not. Now Bierfeldt has enlisted the aid of the ACLU, who are bringing suit against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, under whose authority the TSA falls.

But it goes deeper. The Missouri police circulated an internal email in February stating that Ron Paul and Campaign for Liberty supporters and employees may be militia members and terrorists. This internal memo was a direct result of the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” (read the report here). This report, based on trend data pertaining to militia and terrorist activity within Missouri, stated, among other things, that Ron Paul bumper stickers could be used to identify militia members and terrorists. And Steve Bierfeldt, a Campaign for Liberty employee, was in possession of large quantities of that organization’s literature, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc. He suspects that this, in addition to the cash he was carrying, was the driving factor behind his illegal detention and interrogation.

I’m deeply disturbed by this infringement upon our civil liberties by the federal government and state police officers. But can I say that I’m surprised? Sadly, no. What should we expect when the Department of Homeland Security sets the example by profiling conservatives and returning veterans as potential terrorists and threats to the state (see here)? There has never been a better time to know your rights (while you still have them), to read the pocket Constitution that, if you follow this blog, you should have in your possession. Because there may come a time when you find yourself in a windowless room with uniformed officers acting like gestapo thugs. If you are compelled to cooperate against your rights or they refuse to inform you of your rights, you allow the government to ride roughshod over all our liberties and grow accustomed to getting away with it.

GOVERNOR SANFORD SHOULD RESIGN

2009-06-26T17:03:00.004+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

In politics, disappointment is eternal. In the case of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, that disappointment is more akin to bewilderment at the bizarre circumstances surrounding his recent disgrace. How could someone seemingly so intelligent display such poor judgment? Governor Sanford has revealed himself to be the worst sort of man; an unfaithful one. What’s more, the lengths he went to in order to deceive his state (disappearing for seven days without explanation or protection and leaving his state ungoverned) represent a dereliction of duty and corruptness that are not befitting a governor. And now, he has further been exposed as a fiscal conservative hypocrite, using $12,000 of taxpayer money to pay for a trip to Argentina last year, during which he met his mistress (see here). While Governor Sanford has promised to reimburse the taxpayers for the expenses, I think he should go a step further and resign his office to focus on dealing with what is obviously a difficult time for his family. Forget your presidential aspirations, Governor Sanford. That ship has sailed. South Carolina and conservatism deserve a better leader right now.

OBAMA HAS MISSED THE BOAT ON IRAN

2009-06-25T18:45:00.006+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS
I

President Obama has come under significant criticism for his lukewarm initial response to the massive civil unrest in Iran following the “re-election” of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The president initially commented that he had "deep concerns about the election," but insisted that it was "not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling." Critics, largely conservatives, shot back at the president by pointing out that the contestation of the election by the Iranian people presented a rare opportunity to foster real democracy in Iran from the bottom up and challenge the clerical autocracy. Senator John McCain said, "People are being killed and beaten in the streets of Tehran and all over Iran, and we should stand up for them. The way we stood up for the Polish workers in Gdansk, the way we stood up for the people of then Czechoslovakia in the Prague Spring and we have stood up for freedom in every part of the world. We're not doing that."

President Obama has since come out with a slightly stronger poke at Iran, stating at a press conference that he was “appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the past few days.” He cited the now famous case of the 26-year-old Iranian female protestor who was gunned down in Tehran, her death captured on film, as “raw and extraordinarily painful.” Despite ratcheting up his criticism, however, the president remains hesitant to take a tack with Iran that would play into their favorite narrative of American interference, or give them the ammunition they need to pin the blame for the riots on the United States. Said the president, “There are reports suggesting that the CIA is behind all this. All of which is patently false. But it gives you a sense of the narrative that the Iranian government would love to play into.”

The president’s supporters have praised his response as cautious, calculated and level-headed, which also happen to be their favorite adjectives to describe the man himself. But his critics, myself among them, would characterize the response as timid and deferential. The fact of the matter is that Senator McCain is right. America has stood up for freedom and democracy all over the world in the face of tyranny. At the end of the Cold War, when Soviet satellite states were rising up against their communist overlords, President Reagan praised them, shone the spotlight on them, and supported them. He knew that the opportunity for those people to grab freedom with both hands and shape their own destiny may not have come again had the United States and our allies not given them shoulders to stand on.

That having been said, our support for the protestors should not and does not amount to support for Mousavi, who in many ways is no more progressive than Ahmedinejad. Rather it is support for the notion underlying the protests, that the current Iranian regime is not a legitimate democracy. As long as there exists an authoritarian, un-elected body with the authority to override the will of the people unilaterally, there is not freedom. Senator McCain understands this as well and has articulated it by saying, “…let's not take the side necessarily of the protestors...the fact is we should be on the side of a free and fair election, and not be in favor of an oppressive brutal government." For decades we have told the people of Iran that when they found the courage and opportunity to rise up against the regime, we would be there to cheer them and support them. President Obama’s follow through on that promise has left a great deal to be desired and, in the context of his unwillingness to be portrayed as antagonistic toward Iran’s regime, left the country looking like a paper tiger and fair-weather friend to freedom.

It really is quite silly to think that, by not giving Iran excuses to implicate the US as fomenting this unrest, the Iranians will let us off the hook. The president and his ilk have argued that our vocal support would result in the protesters being portrayed as Western proxies, thereby damaging their credibility within Iran. But the Iranians have been blaming us for all sorts of things since 1979, some of which was deserved, much of which was not. They don’t need President Obama to provide them with an excuse to kick around the West or demonize the protestors as a CIA-backed mob. To tip-toe around human rights violations and the chance of real democracy in Iran because the brutal tyrants who are threatened by it might use it against you is lunacy. For a president who wants to promote an image of an America dedicated to the principles of freedom and dignity for all human beings, this policy represents a demonstrable failure.

But those who suffer the most will be the people of Iran who tried to challenge their masters; when it is all said and done, they may only be recorded as a footnote in the history books thanks to our thunderous silence. We need to be rhetorically aggressive and support those who would stand up for freedom against its enemies. Some say the gamble is too risky, that if those who challenge the regime fail to win reforms that our relationship with Iran will be setback even further, and they will be even more resolved in their anti-Westernism. I say the perceived gains in US-Iranian relations since the Obama administration took over have been illusory, that the retention of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad attests to a continued hard-line tone unequivocally. I say there remains less to lose from supporting freedom in Iran than from allowing the regime to crush and demoralize those who march for it.

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED

2009-06-18T18:07:00.006+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

A Gallup poll released on June 15 reveals that Conservatives are the single largest ideological group in the United States, with 40% of Americans identifying themselves as such. Moderates came in at 35%, and Liberals at a paltry 21%.

While this alone is reassuring, I am just as heartened by the data when broken down by age group. According to Gallup, adults aged 18-29 years are almost evenly split, with 31% calling themselves Liberals and 30% calling themselves Conservatives (39% consider themselves Moderates). Historical data was unavailable for comparison, however this is better than I would have expected from personal and anecdotal experience.

Perhaps the Children of the Revolution have begun their march to power at last, though this particular revolution will clearly not be televised (at least not by ABC, NBC and CNN).

PURE, UNFETTERED PROPAGANDA

2009-06-17T16:16:00.006+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS
I

It neither bothers nor surprises me so much that ABC has sold its soul and become a propaganda arm of the Obama White House, as NBC has (see here). What bothers me is their pretension that they remain a fair, objective journalistic outfit. With their upcoming broadcast of a health care reform special, "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," on June 24, they are happily allowing themselves to be used by the White House to advance an agenda and establish premises in the health care debate that are not necessarily accepted by all parties. The special will take place within the White House and will consist of ABC-selected questions from an ABC-selected audience for President Obama regarding the health care system and his proposed reforms. This airtime comes at no cost to the White House or the Democratic Party; rather ABC is footing the bill and, according to them, running the show. ABC cannot bring itself to admit what everyone already knows to be true: they're giving the Obama administration control of their network to broadcast what amounts to an infomercial (sans Billy Mays or slap-chops) peddling their health care agenda.

The GOP, in an appropriately calculated move, requested that its views be presented in the ABC special in order for all voices to be heard, but were rebuffed. ABC insists that the questions from the audience will be fair and even tough for the president, and will represent all sides of the debate. If this is truly to be the case, here are questions to look for as a litmus test to determine if conservative viewpoints are in fact represented:

1. Mr. President, you promised that, under a public health care plan, those of us who prefer to remain with our current, private health care plans will not be compelled to opt for the public option or give up our current coverage. However, if the public plan is cheaper, how can you guarantee that businesses will not drop their private coverage for their employees in favor of the public option in order to cut overall costs, effectively compelling those employees into the public plan, which you promised would not happen?

2. Mr. President, how do you intend to avoid the likely flight of American-educated physicians from the US market when a public option or heavy regulation drives wages for health care professionals down?

3. Mr. President, what are the key differences between your plan and the plans of European countries that have adopted universal healthcare, such as the United Kingdom, which are now facing bankruptcy and reform to scale back coverage?

4. Mr. President, given current, staggering deficits and spending, how do you propose to pay for your plan in a sustainable fashion without raising taxes on all Americans?

I will be surprised if even one of these questions is asked. What will likely happen is that the premise will be established in this forum that the government must play the leading role in health care reform and the question of how to pay for it will be largely ignored, as will the failures of other such public health care programs in Europe and elsewhere. The public option will be touted as the "people's choice," but the president will hijack small-government and fiscal responsibility rhetoric from conservatives in a token effort to appease moderates in his own party and give them hope that he's willing to lower his sights (even if he is not).

THE REAL IRAN

2009-06-15T16:36:00.007+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

There has been an undeniable campaign on the part of some segments of the media and even our political establishment since the mid-90s to paint the Iranian theocracy as a functioning democracy, open and fair, simply with a traditional, local flair not unlike the British constitutional monarchy. This effort to take the edge off of Iran’s image is certainly the result of a political agenda. During the late 1990s, when the much-touted reformist president Khatami was elected in Iran, a serious and perhaps overly enthusiastic overture was made by the Clinton administration to renew diplomatic relations after a 20 year period of hostility. These overtures amounted largely to the US giving away the farm while the Iranian regime made token gestures of goodwill, such as inviting American tourism. Among the Clinton administration’s good faith measures to induce Iranian openness: apologizing for the Shah’s US-backed coup, relaxation of food and medical exports to Iran and allowing entry of an Iranian professional wrestling team to compete in the United States. The Clinton administration also privately considered rescinding its executive order identifying Iran as a state-sponsor of terrorism and a rogue state. What did the US get in return? A refusal by President Khatami to apologize for the taking of American hostages in 1979, a demand from Ayatollah Khamenei for the US to withdraw its support for Israel, end the 1995 sanctions imposed on the country, and cease its claims that Iran was developing nuclear weaponry, among other things. A lopsided exchange, to be sure. Made all the more tragic by the attacks of September 11, launched by radical Islamic extremists of the sort that Iran had long been providing enthusiastic material and financial support for.

The effort that was underway by the media and some politicians to soften the tone against the Iranian regime, particularly when talking about the legitimacy of its elections, has more or less come to and end with the results of the recent presidential election. According to the Supreme Council (the arm of the absolute rulers of Iran, the all-powerful Mujtahids of the Assembly of Experts), Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has been re-elected in a landslide. Reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi has petitioned the Supreme Council for an investigation of fraud after sustained protests in the streets of Tehran from his supporters that were violently suppressed. While the theocratic regime goes through the dog-and-pony show of investigating the claims of fraud for its Western audience, the inevitable result will be a retention of Ahmedinejad as president and a continuation of the hard-line tone in defiance of President Obama’s outreach.

Should we be surprised? Certainly it seems like the media was taken aback, after days of touting the elections as a proving ground for Obama’s new policy of openness to the Muslim world. Many networks reported dreamily about the possibility of an upheaval in the country brought about by the people of Iran in defiance of the mullahs. It has all been a comical farce, as no democratic government can be legitimate as long as it institutionalizes a body that can unilaterally and autocratically overturn the will of the people on a whim. Iran has never been a real democracy. It cleverly retains the trappings of democracy as a smoke-screen for the West, who have at times taken the bait hook, line and sinker. But presidential candidates are hand-picked by the Supreme Council, which also tallies the votes. As the great thug Josef Stalin observed, it isn’t the voting that matters, but who does the counting. The only way a “reformer” gets elected president of Iran is if the Supreme Council wishes it to be so, and if that be the case, the West must ask itself why? To project an image for the benefit of the West, to provide misdirection to Western leaders (that results in Clintonesque generosities without Iranian reciprocation), to satisfy a young, restive Iranian populace?

In this election, however, the theocrats chose to retain a hard-liner, which also sends a message intended for Western audiences. Whether they use that hard-liner for the jingoistic rhetoric associated with him while pursuing a softer line remains to be seen. It certainly does not bode well for President Obama’s hopeful tone on Iranian relations, and it bodes even worse for the Iranian people. The media has lost its battle to portray a “people’s Iran” as well, and is seeking to save face by speculating as to whether the disenfranchised Iranian citizens will challenge the power of the mullahs. One thing is certain: this election has reminded us of the real Iran, as it has always been, regardless of the West’s projections upon it.

NOTHING YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW

2009-06-01T18:55:00.004+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

A surprise gem from Newsweek by Robert Samuelson (a simultaneously dour, exhausted and intelligent individual if his headshot and writing are any indication) that I consider the definitive piece on the media’s troubling and overt servility to President Obama. In it Mr. Samuelson presents the results of a Pew Research Center study that flatly concludes: “President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House.”

The evidence? An exhaustive review of 1,261 news stories by The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, Newsweek and PBS’s NewsHour that reveals that 42% of the stories were clearly favorable to President Obama, 20% were unfavorable (that number seems a bit high…), and the remaining 38% “neutral” or “mixed.” Compare that to 22% favorable stories for former President Bush and 27% for former President Clinton. Moreover, the coverage of the sitting president differs substantially in that it focuses primarily on Obama’s leadership style and personal qualities rather than his actual policies and agenda (crippling debt, economic fascism, an onerous federal government, judicial activism, etc).

Of course this isn’t anything you don’t already know, but that doesn’t make it any less troubling. The point is you likely won’t find this story widely carried (for obvious reasons), and consequently I felt an obligation to ensure that it was well-circulated.

RETHINKING THE ABORTION DEBATE

2009-05-20T18:40:00.018+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

I’ve finally gotten around to writing an opinion piece on the divisive subject of abortion, one that I feel is fair-minded and based in sound, logical argument rather than emotive in nature. The discussion herein is one of the fundamental philosophical issues underlying the debate rather than demographic data, teen pregnancy rates and case law (the merits and demerits of Roe v Wade as sound law are an article unto themselves). The goal of this article is to begin an intelligent dialogue about abortion that is not colored by religious conviction or partisan rancor and to avoid blanket categorizations. I am under no illusions, however, that moderating the tone of the debate will somehow change the fact that the two sides of this issue are irreconcilable, and that middle ground is untenable. This will almost certainly be just the first of many articles on this subject that appear on this blog.

What spurred the penning of this piece was the announcement by Gallup that, for the first time since the poll was conducted, a majority of Americans identify themselves as “Pro-Life.” According to Gallup’s 2009 poll, 51% of Americans call themselves “Pro-Life,” while 42% say they are “Pro-Choice.” Even more significant is the data they present on legality, in which 37% (a plurality) of Americans support abortion only in “a few circumstances,” while 23% say that abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances”. This makes a combined number of 60% of Americans that lean more toward a ban on abortion in most cases than existing abortion rights. This is, needless to say, significant and represents a monumental shift in public opinion in a mere one year period. If these numbers hold steady into next year, we can expect the debate in Washington to begrudgingly recognize and adapt to the new reality, though I do not expect a seismic shift in policy to occur quickly, if at all, given the entrenchment and political investment on this issue.

Consequently, there is no more opportune time to reframe the debate on abortion and lay out foundational arguments than now. First and foremost, as I think both sides of the argument agree, this is a civil liberties issue. Personal experiences, political sympathies and, perhaps most of all, religion may color the pitch and tambour of the debate, but at the end of the day it must be about individual freedom and the liberties protected under our Constitution in order for the reasoned arguments to resonate and to ensure that the participants aren’t speaking past one another. On the one side, the case is made that abortion is about the rights of a woman to make a choice involving her body. On the other side, it is argued that the choice to terminate a pregnancy is an infringement of the basic human rights of the unborn child, and therefore illegitimate.

As the readers of this blog are aware, as a rational conservative I am loathe to come down on the side of banning anything. Nevertheless, I strongly support the latter argument in the abortion debate, which is, in my opinion, a better reflection of maximum civil liberties protection than the former. This may sound counter-intuitive to many, particularly those supporting abortion rights, which is precisely why the reframing of this debate is so essential. The fundamental maxim of civil liberties, according to rational conservatism, is to permit any action that does not infringe upon the basic liberties of another. The conclusion for those of us who oppose abortion then is simple: given that life is among those basic liberties, the practice of abortion does not meet that criteria. Would that it were so simple, however.

The focus of the debate seems to rest upon the question of when life begins. Frankly I believe this is the wrong question to ask, and furthermore it is unlikely to be resolved by science definitively. As such, it adds little to the debate as it stands. Nevertheless, those advocating abortion rights, framing their position within the “when does life begin” construct, present various medical arguments that contend that the embryo/fetus is not technically a human being, among which are:

1. It is incapable of sentient thought
2. It is incapable of surviving outside of the womb
3. It displays similar characteristics to a parasite

I counter that these items are irrelevant. The more appropriate focus for the debate seems to me to be the basic intent behind and the logical consequences of abortion. To the first, the intent behind abortion is not to terminate an embryo/fetus, it is to avoid giving birth to and raising a living child. The reasons for this choice are numerous and varied, ranging from economic and social circumstances to the discovery of genetic defects during the pregnancy. Regardless, when a woman or a couple makes the decision to have an abortion, they are not saying, “I don’t want this embryo.” They are saying, “I don’t want this child.” While the pregnancy may be part of the inconvenience, the real goal of an abortion is to eliminate a human being.

Still, there are those participating in the debate that point back to the medical arguments outlined above. They contend that, despite the intent, the consequence is that an embryo/fetus, which is not a living human being in its current form, is what is destroyed. The argument seems legitimate but it is conveniently only taken halfway to the logical conclusion. Reason dictates that, barring natural incident or accident, the embryo will develop into a fetus, which will in turn be delivered as a live infant (bear in mind: barring miscarriage, accident, stillbirth). Metaphysically and scientifically speaking, that embryo will become a human being; it is a member of our human species. This is beyond question. Any human agency that destroys the embryo or terminates the pregnancy prevents the march of nature from taking its course to inevitably produce a human life. At what stage the pregnancy is terminated is wholly irrelevant. Similarly, at what stage human life begins in the womb also becomes irrelevant.

This raises a few other questions, however. If preventing human life is tantamount to taking human life, wouldn’t contraception go out the window, as the Catholic Church currently teaches? No, it would not. Contraception is a perfectly legitimate and responsible (though not 100% reliable) way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The difference between preventing pregnancy and preventing birth is that a sperm on its own will not evolve into a human being. An egg on its own will not become a child. Only when the egg is fertilized does the aforementioned and critical “march of nature” or maturation begin. Using the parlance of the traditional debate, this would be similar to the “life begins at conception” argument.

Another counter-argument is that, in the era of modern science, a mere skin cell or unfertilized egg could potentially be used to create a living human being. If this is the case, wouldn’t clipping your fingernails or cutting your hair be equivalent to abortion? Clever, but once again, I point to the fact that, without active human agency, fingernail and hair clippings on their own will not become a human being. While a skin cell contains the building blocks for life, human beings mercifully did not evolve to reproduce by asexual fission, like planarians. The cloning debate is an entirely separate argument, and as it stands Americans rightly and overwhelmingly oppose human cloning.

But let us suppose that the question of when life begins remains the central focus of the debate. Legally speaking, how should this logically be addressed? As previously stated, science has not definitively proven when life begins, though both sides of the debate present evidence supporting their claims. In cases dealing with human life and death the law has an obligation, in lieu of definitive scientific data, to err on the side of caution. If it cannot be proven definitively that a fetus is not alive, then it logically follows that legal protections should be offered pending a final analysis, just in case. Those advocating abortion rights would say that this puts the burden of proof on them rather than those opposing those rights. That is absolutely correct. In instances where there is a potential for the destruction of human life, the burden of proof should be on those who advocate the course of action in question, just as the prosecution must prove the guilt of a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, rather than the other way around. If this sounds unfair, perhaps you should step back from the debate and analyze it in its entirety as we suggest: logically and Constitutionally.

It’s important to ask another fundamental question when debating abortion rights. In the unlikely event that science is able to prove beyond question that life begins at conception, would those advocating for abortion acquiesce, or would they still contend that abortion is a fundamental right? Bear in mind, the “when life begins” argument really matters only to those arguing in favor of abortion rights as it is the cornerstone of their case; for those of us arguing against, the question of exactly when a human being becomes a human being does not anchor our argument. If the inverse should be true, and science should prove indisputably that an embryo is not a living human being, it does not alter the “intent and consequences” logic of our case.

It’s easy to flatly state that abortion should be illegal. What isn’t necessarily as easy, however, are the consequences of making such a statement reality. What do unready or unwilling mothers do if they are unable to terminate their pregnancy? Do they have an abortion performed illegally? If so, what legal consequences would they face? For those that carry their child to term, should the state offer assistance with medical care? If the child is born to a mother financially incapable of supporting it, what options does she have? Put the child up for adoption? Should the state provide targeted support if they decide to raise the child themselves? These are all legitimate issues for which those arguing against abortion rights must offer solutions if we are to be responsible and intellectually honest citizens.

To the first, what are the consequences of eliminating the option of abortion for unready and unwilling mothers? To be sure, there will be women who choose to have an abortion performed illegally. Those arguing for abortion rights often point to this as a chief reason why it should remain legal, as a ban creates more criminals and does not eliminate abortions altogether. While true, it is not a legitimate argument. We do not legalize theft because it would reduce the prison population or because we cannot prevent all robberies. Nevertheless, there are very real societal difficulties when making something that has been a “fundamental right” for thirty-six years illegal. What legal consequences should a woman who has an abortion performed illegally face?

This has typically been one of the biggest hang-ups for those arguing against abortion. Some take the extreme view that abortion should be treated as murder by our criminal justice system, resulting in 20 years to life in prison, while others suggest only minimal or even no significant punishment. The question must be answered fairly and consistently. While abortion is equivalent to taking a human life, the circumstances surrounding it are unique, particularly given that it is currently a Constitutionally-protected right. Personally, I wouldn’t find it productive or fair to throw what is often a frightened 17-20 year-old girl in prison for the better part of her life as punishment for her choice to have an abortion. In the United States, our legal system already recognizes the varying degrees of homicide, ranging from involuntary to voluntary to second and first degree murder. Additionally, there is a subcategory of voluntary manslaughter called infanticide that deals specifically with mothers who kill their infant children as a result of an unbalanced mental state brought on by post-partum depression. I would see no problem with creating a similarly distinct subcategory of voluntary manslaughter for abortion that carries a lesser sentence. For first-time offenders, I think a minimum sentence of 250 hours (roughly one month) of community service working with underprivileged children, adoption organizations, single mother support groups, etc would be reasonable, in addition to one year of mandatory counseling dealing with responsible sexual education, pre-natal development, and motherhood. For repeat or serial offenders, punishment would necessarily be harsher, involving jail time determined by the number of abortions and manner or reason for which they were conducted. But those actually conducting the abortion, that is to say the doctors, would be subject to serious penalties. Jail time ranging from 2-15 years depending upon the number of abortions performed and health consequences for the mother would be wholly appropriate.

We would, of course, not be hunting down and pursuing those who have had abortions or performed them in the past and those prior occurrences would not count against them on their record should they be brought up on charges for abortion after it became illegal. Furthermore, while the suggested penalties outlined above seem reasonable and fair to me, ultimately of course it would be left up to the states and the legal system to make a final determination with the input of society as a whole. Mine would be just one voice among hundreds of millions of Americans, some arguing for sterner penalties and others for minimal or none at all.

Mitigation of the factors that lead to a woman’s decision to have an abortion must also become part of the solution. Common factors that influence the decision are the inability to support the child financially, or inability to carry or raise a child due to life circumstances (school, career, unmarried, etc). As a society, if we agree to bar a woman from having an abortion, we are obligated to provide her with as much support as possible to carry the child to term and, if she so chooses, raise the child. The government should have a role to play in making assistance with medical expenses and care available for women in these circumstances should they need it, though the role should be an indirect one. Offerring generous tax incentives and federal funding for charitable and non-profit organizations that provide pre-natal care and financial aid, adoption assistance, single mother support and childcare would be one of many ways the state can give indirect support. If a mother decides to raise the child herself, despite difficult social or financial circumstances, targeted government support in the form of welfare services already exist, as does financial aid/tax relief for day care and education. As far as this conservative is concerned, providing support to mothers in need and the children they carry and raise is perhaps one of the most suitable uses of tax money conceivable.

As stated earlier, I am typically the last person to advocate a ban of any sort, and favor freedom of choice and government non-interference in just about every aspect of life. I do not consider myself to be a social conservative in the traditional sense of the word and do feel a significant level of discomfort advocating for banning and punishing a practice that is currently perfectly legal. Nevertheless, like Nat Hentoff and other secular opponents of abortion, I feel that there are compelling and legitimate reasons why the practice should be ended that do not rest solely on religious or emotive principles, but on logic, liberty and basic ethics. Furthermore, I have satisfied myself that the core arguments in favor of abortion are insufficient to warrant Constitutional protection as a “fundamental right,” despite my own personal political inclinations that often border on libertarian. I do recognize the difficulties of transforming what has been a Constitutional right into a crime, though I would state that the difficulty could have been avoided with more thoughtful and responsible judicial exercise in 1973, and am willing to concede that such a ban obliges government assistance for those who otherwise may have sought abortion. The purpose behind this article is to initiate thoughtful, reasoned debate and offer a more secular case against abortion. I have intentionally avoided the usage of loaded terms such as “pro-life” or “pro-choice” (except when referencing the language of the recent Gallup poll) due to their ties to the existing, politically charged debate, and have opted to instead make this discussion one between rational individuals rather than disparate interest groups.

81%

2009-05-15T15:48:00.006+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Bruce Bartlett had a shocking article in Forbes today that every American should read. What is shocking about it is not that he maintains that taxes for all Americans will have to go up in order to cover Social Security and Medicare obligations (sadly this isn’t necessarily common knowledge), but rather that taxes will have to shoot up by 81%. Bartlett runs the numbers and makes a starkly convincing and mathematically sound case. Says Bartlett:

“To summarize, we see that taxpayers are on the hook for Social Security and Medicare by these amounts: Social Security, 1.3% of GDP; Medicare part A, 2.8% of GDP; Medicare part B, 2.8% of GDP; and Medicare part D, 1.2% of GDP. This adds up to 8.1% of GDP. Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax.”

Facts are facts. And to complicate matters the Obama administration has gone on record as the biggest spending administration in American history, creating a federal deficit of $1.8 trillion. President Obama has also set his sights on a public health care initiative that won’t come cheap. While the president rightly says we need to tackle entitlement reform, what options does he truly have? A reduction of benefits will be a hard sell, even for someone with his considerable (but waning) political capital. Privatization would be a non-starter considering the constituency that elected him. Realistically he is left with only one choice: raise taxes.

Of course, he won’t raise our taxes by 81%. He will likely be clever and do as we predicted in The Coming Train Wreck, raising corporate tax rates to all-time highs not seen since the 1970s to help cover some of the cost. But that alone won’t come close to saving Social Security/Medicare, funding his pet programs and reducing the deficit. We’ll see our taxes go up one way or another. More than likely it will be in the form of what I like to call “behavior modification” taxes, such as the tax on soda and sugar that is currently under discussion in Congress. In the interest of American health, he could get away with taxing the daylights out of all sorts of things on the federal level. But can he reach Bartlett’s 81% that way? Not a chance.

And to complicate matters further, the president promised that any American earning less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes go up by one cent. While this is a promise he’s already cleverly broken (by allowing “behavior modification” tax hikes, such as those on tobacco products), he cannot touch our income tax rates without suffering a quick (albeit painful) political death reminiscent of George HW Bush.

So while the president can squeeze business (which in turn will cause a whole slew of separate issues for the languishing economy) and sneak in some targeted tax hikes here and there, he’s tied his own hands on income tax hikes where most of the money would presumably have to come from. This wouldn’t be that big a problem if he could keep his lust for spending and big government programs in check, but he has proven himself to be one of, if not the most, fiscally irresponsible presidents in American history; and he’s only been in office for less than five months. He will kick the can down the road to the next president, as he has frequently accused the Bush administration of doing, and hope for the best.

THE WRITING ON THE WALL

2009-05-05T23:52:00.002+03:00

BY LUSCUS

As I’m sure we’re all aware, Arlen Specter jumped ship on April 29th, and has now handed the Democrats their 60-seat majority on a silver platter. That is, of course, when Coleman finally gives up in Minnesota. Why did Specter switch, you ask? Easy – he likes his job better than he likes his party, and he knows that there was a spot on the Dem’s 2010 scalp wall with Specter stenciled above it.

I don’t expect the party to make up seats in the mid-term election. It’d be nice, but I’m not holding my breath. The Obama campaign has kept chugging along, and his personal popularity ought to be enough to see his party squeak through with a handful of gains. Is this the end of the world? No, but it does mean that the Republicans need to take this time in the wilderness to improve. They’ve got to do a Rocky IV montage of pulling logs in the Siberian wilderness, because quite frankly, that’s what’s needed. Not to win the fight, no, but to avoid a new ‘era of good feelings’ and effective one-party rule for the next 20-40 years.

During the last Republican ascendancy, the party was aided by a brilliant pundit who chased the crazies out of the tent and turned what was an odd mish-mash of whigs, tories, libertarians, southern old-boys, the military, and yes, even crypto-fascists into the party that would usher in a revolution. William F. Buckley, Jr., we will miss you.

With our watchman retired, the crazies have snuck back in. The idea that we can roll back the last 17 years (21 for many) is stupid. The idea that we can allow unmitigated self-regulation across the board is also stupid. Do we need a 90% tax rate? Of course not, but locking down all meaningful traffic in Congress over a stupid 34/39% rate only leads to more of the political tribalism that’s sent this country into a downward spiral. The tea parties were a stupid idea, rightfully mocked by the left AND middle. Open discussion about where a big chunk of this spending is going is legitimate and necessary. Allowing all of the anti-government cranks to rant about “teabagging the president” is hilarious to watch, shameful when affiliated with one’s party. The ONLY redeeming thing I can think that these events could have accomplished is to fill the party’s coffers, and not merely inflate Lipton’s quarterly revenue.

Reagan’s “three-legged stool” of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and defense hawks, has been shattered by the fusing of the latter two groups into the NeoCons, a group whose name is an oxymoron: having abandoned the textbook realism of its conservative forebears, this group preaches the exporting of our values (textbook liberalism) and by force, if necessary (imperialism). Picking up our slack, the Democrats’ 50-state policy actively recruited moderate Republicans to run against their more right-wing Republican opponents. They succeeded, and wildly. I’m not even talking about Rockefeller Republicans, as even the moderates have been chased out of the party in favor of rabid populism.

It is a simple truth of politics that the biggest tent wins elections. By setting up a bigger tent, the Democrats have collected the votes needed to push their agendas. Are some of them wrong for the country? Yes. By chasing off potential allies and drawing a strict red line around a little circle of ideas will the Republican Party regain even a competitive balance? No.

Here is Luscus’ New Republican platform, by which the GOP has a chance to not be relegated to a third party of cranks when the Democratic wings eventually split:

1. Tough on Crime, Punishment reform – Luscus’ new criminal platform is toughest on white-collar crime, with two tracks of punishment for violent and non-violent offenders of other crime. Punishment reform would see the elimination of the three-strike rule for drug use offenders, and a 2nd track of addiction treatment and education (not incarceration) for all users, with all street-dealers’ punishment commuted upon conviction of their suppliers (higher up the chain, more time commuted).
2. War on Drugs now War on Organized Crime – new approach would buy drug supplies from growing countries (Columbia, Afghanistan, Myanmar) and eliminate the income source of middle-man cartels in a drive to break the cycle of drugs – guns – human trafficking/political intimidation. This would see a massive hike in the level of cooperation with Mexico, even to the point of using the US military against the Gulf and Sinaloa cartels.
3. Immigration Reform – all of the rabid anti-immigrant border Nazis must leave the party. Yes, it gets votes, but forcing millions of GDP-boosting workers off of the grid fuels crime, and reduces the government’s rightful take of their wages. The sad truth of this is that a contracting economy makes this a significantly smaller problem than when times were good. Luscus would enact a ‘guest-worker’ program similar to Germany’s gastarbeiters, and give blanket amnesty to all undocumented workers that signed up for these 1-2 year work permits. This would also allow unlimited H-1B visas (for specialty occupation) so long as the holder had guaranteed employment.
4. Foreign Policy – adoption of Wilsonian Realism (or Pragmatic Wilsonianism) as foreign policy, which combines textbook Realism in dealing with diminishing sovereignty at irregular levels with international treaties and fora with the goal of a single world order that includes all participants. This means pumping up the NPT and IAEA, reigning in China’s egocentrism (and currency manipulation), and working more closely with Russia and Europe to establish order (not necessarily democracy) as the preeminent goal of world cooperation.
5. Political Financial Reform – Two giant planks of this: 1) every member of congress, and all non-career civil servants (especially cabinet rank) would undergo annual auditing by the IRS. 2) Campaign donations would be limited to residents of one’s constituency, so if you’re running for house, it’s your district. If you’re running for Senate, within the state. If you’re running for President, you can only spend the money you raise within each state. No term limits, but no more California Real Estate moguls deciding who wins in Kentucky.

I’m leaving off Domestic Policy, because the next 3-7 years will change the system so radically it won’t matter. If I were to have one, it would be Infrastructure investment – this would eliminate stupid subsidies (Corn-based ethanol, farms over 1000 acres) and invest in infrastructure the way the Eisenhower Interstate System did – more high speed rail (private competition) for certain industrial corridors, Special Economic Zones (SEZ) along the rust belt (Buffalo, Cleveland, entire state of Michigan), roll-on container ships for coastal transit of trailer trucks to relieve stress on coastal interstates, smart water and electrical grids (with huge investment in security to keep the Chinese and Russians out) and expanded broadband and wifi for urban centers. This would be a pro-growth, pro-job policy that would set out national goals instead of constituency-projects (which is how it’s being handled now). All numbers would be run by the GAO and the Congressional Research Service, and published as such. Education reform would see more charter schools, and a reversal of the No Child Left Behind standards – instead of the federal government mandating training and states setting benchmarks, we’d see national standardized tests and the states would determine qualifications (ideally minimal).

Otherwise, here are Luscus’ predictions for short to medium term Domestic policy:

1. Increasing scope of Medicare/Medicaid will price out private insurance, leading to a nationalized health care system by attrition and not enactment
2. Letting Wall Street gamble with pension plans will see nationalization of retirement, as the last two years has shown that we can’t trust either the retirees or their financial managers to handle their retirement accounts
3. Bastardized nationalization of banks will see more and more bankers become millionaires, while limiting entry to this Midas caste to family members of executives
4. Gay marriage legalized, but not the right way (must give civil benefits evenly and respect religion’s beliefs and give them a right to choose who to serve).

Am I angry? Yes. Am I cranky? Yes. What makes me different is that I am anti-populist, seethingly anti-corruption, and can sum up my feelings towards our elected officials in four words: Grow The F*** Up. You’re elected to make the tough decisions, not to entrench yourself in a high-paying high-profile fundraising job with all sorts of perks. By manipulating the easily-swayed boobs of the population, you’ve balkanized the country into crazy tribes who can’t talk to each other, don’t know what they’re talking about, and are getting louder and louder.

What Republicans have to do to regain their relevance is to become as seethingly anti-corruption as I am, strike out against globalized crime, domestic corruption (on Wall Street and on K street), and adopt an economic pragmatism that may stray from strict ideology from time to time. In short: don’t drink the Kool Aid, drive off the crazies, and get back to doing the heavy lifting and number crunching.

OBAMA HEARS CRICKETS CHIRPING ON "TAX REFORM" PROPOSAL

2009-05-05T15:54:00.006+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

The president has drawn a line in the sand on reforming a tax code that encourages businesses to move their operations and their profits offshore to avoid paying federal income tax. Obama boldly declared on Monday that he will demand that tax loopholes that allow businesses to claim certain deductions and hide their money offshore be closed, and that financial institutions that facilitate these offshore operations open their records to the US government or become a target. Said the president, “If financial institutions won't cooperate with us, we will assume that they are sheltering money in tax havens and act accordingly.” Sound familiar? But Obama’s proposed War on Tax Havens has been met with stern opposition from businesses and uncomfortable silence from his own Democratic Party in Congress.

There is no question that President Obama’s proposed reform would put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage with foreign companies. Indeed, such a move would eliminate the only incentive that American businesses have to remain tied to America. Obama’s plan ignores or misunderstands the real reasons why American businesses avoid federal income tax. The first reason is that their taxes are too high. US corporate tax rates are the second highest in the world (Japan takes first place), ranging from 35-41%, as compared to 34.4% in France and 25% in communist China. Which leads to the second reason: everyone wants to minimize their tax payments. If there were copious tax loopholes for middle-class Americans that we could take advantage of, don’t think for a moment that we wouldn’t. Businesses are not villainous because they’re keeping their tax payments as low as possible in order to preserve their capital and generate growth. If you’re looking for someone to blame, look no further than your Congress, who writes these insanely complicated and ad hoc tax laws.

The fact that the president’s allies in Congress are trying to avoid the issue belies that they know it would spell economic doom for the US, particularly their constituents. Senate Finance Committee Chairman and Democrat Max Baucus said the proposal requires “further study.” Even ultra-liberal Barbara Boxer has said that a plan should not be adopted that has “unintended consequences.” To be realistic, the president doesn’t stand a chance of making this plan a reality. Businesses will not allow themselves to hobbled in such a way by the federal government and they will make sure that enough Congressional Democrats see things their way to stall the move. The consequences of enacting such a plan would be dire, particularly in a recession with rising unemployment. I’ll go so far as to say the idea is monumentally stupid. This is not to say that the idea won’t resound with many Americans, who like words like “fairness” and feel, now more than ever thanks to the president, that businesses are to blame for many of their woes.

If the president wants to reform the tax code, conservatives are all ears. We’ve been asking for tax reform for quite some time now. But this “simplification” of the tax code amounts to a tax hike on the people already paying the majority of taxes in this country and creates a disincentive for them to operate in the United States at the worst possible time. Like we’ve been saying, President Obama, why don’t we keep tax rates as low as possible right now? It’s not our fault your stimulus plan and budget are wildly irresponsible debt-monsters (well, it’s not my fault anyway).

AN EXPENSIVE FIRST 100 DAYS

2009-04-27T17:32:00.004+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

The news media and punditry are aflutter recording and dissecting the much-touted First 100 Days of the Obama Administration. Analyses range from supplicating adoration to vitriolic condemnation. I regard the 100 Day watermark as an artificial and largely meaningless political unit of measure, however I can’t pass up the opportunity it provides to slow down and take the administration’s pulse. The metaphor is apt.

President Obama has been almost manic in his pace of governing. With energy I’m sure he hopes appears energetic and fresh but may in fact be haphazard and frenzied, he has tackled numerous issues and demonstrated a significant shift from the policies of the Bush administration, some good, and some bad. But the political rock star may find himself burning out if he keeps spending political capital at his current pace, something that is being tacitly acknowledged by his administration’s recently expanding "back burner" list of issues the president does not consider a priority (among them gun-control and international trade reform).

His biggest domestic accomplishments to date have been the passage of the much-debated stimulus plan and the massive budget that immediately followed. The president was firm in his support for these mammoth spending measures and as a result he betrayed his campaign promises of "fiscal responsibility" and frightened already skittish moderate Democrats in Congress. Token demonstrations, such as the laughable Fiscal Responsibility Summit and his demand for the members of his Cabinet to cut $100 million in spending (which would cut the projected 2009 deficit by a paltry .006%) have done little to reverse his new spendthrift image.

In foreign policy, he has begun his promised global outreach, opening dialogue with hostile leaders in both hemispheres. His infamous handshake with Chavez and silence during tag-team haranguing of US policy by a collection of South American thugs during a summit has not sat well with many. Nor was he helped when Fidel Castro flatly stamped out the hopes of many of both the American right and left of an opening of Cuba when he stated that the communist nation would not reciprocate Obama’s goodwill gestures by releasing political prisoners. North Korea has grown more aggressive and less cooperative, launching a missile, ejecting nuclear inspectors and withdrawing from multilateral talks.

The president has released memos detailing enhanced interrogation techniques that has generated fierce debate. Whether you agree with the release of these memos or not, it was politically an ill-advised battle to pick. Already the hypocrisy of his own party is being exposed as leading Democrats who both knew of and approved the techniques in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks are now demanding prosecutions for Bush administration officials who implemented them (see here). Additionally, he has made himself and his party vulnerable to a significant backlash should another attack occur on American soil.

Republicans, for whom innumerable obituaries were written following Obama’s election, are now finding limited traction with which to regain strength. Where once the stated policy of the GOP was to refrain from attacking Obama due to his popularity and instead focus on assailing Congressional Democrats, Republican leaders are now becoming more aggressive toward the president as he becomes more and more entangled in the brambles he himself has sown.

Furthermore, George Will has rightly pointed out that Obama may not be doing himself any favors with his insistence on remaining in the faces of the American public 24/7 (see here). Once considered a brilliant and fresh tactic of creating transparency and accessibility, his regular internet addresses and public appearances may instead be tiring Americans with already short attention spans out. The Obama mystique, consequently, is unraveling more rapidly than most pundits had predicted. This, combined with his insistence on spreading himself thin politically as well, may set the tone for the rest of his first term.

Still on the docket: health care reform, entitlement reform (including social security), education reform, renewed nuclear disarmament talks with Russia, and much much more. While Obama’s approval ratings remain above 60%, he cannot continue at his current pace and expect to get much done with the remainder of his first term.

TEACHING CONSERVATISM: THE TYRANNY OF THE MASSES

2009-04-22T03:45:00.007+03:00

BY HARIOLOR

Fair denizens of the interweb, I shall, as ever, endeavor to be brief in today's submission. Ultimately, I am sure to fail. Already I've squandered three sentences; but I digress. What I would like to do is begin with a simple thought experiment for you:

Imagine your favorite vice, it need not be destructive or deviant (though it certainly could be if you like) - a fine ice cream treat, a good book and comfortable chair, chewing a hangnail, whatever you will.

Now imagine you have, by some happy accident, moved to a town in which exactly half the people share your favorite vice. Not too shabby, you've got immediate grounds for friendship with half the people in town. But let's say exactly half the people in this town have a favorite vice that is exactly that thing that annoys you most. Now here's the kicker - the two halves overlap, so half of the people who like what you like also do what you hate. Imagine also, that these are the only two factors that matter to you and everyone else in the town, and none of you are able to move out (remember, this is a thought experiment). So there are four distinct types of neighbors in this little town, and you're all stuck with each other.

People you like = 25%

People you should like but annoy you = 25%

People you don't care about either way = 25%

People who only annoy you = 25%

Well now your happy relationship with half the town has been reduced to a happy relationship with one-fourth. What's worse, there's a full fourth of the town that you really can't stand (those nail-chewing troglodytes!).

Now, imagine you are talking with some friends, one of whom is a politician - maybe the mayor, or on city council, whatever. Since you're all bona-fide members of the fine-ice-cream-treat-loving-non-nail-chewing sect in town, you feel comfortable expressing your frustration about the town's apparent propensity for munching on keratinous growths. “If only,” you complain, “it were possible to get everybody to stop biting their nails.”

Your politician friend perks up, “Why, all we'd have to do is pass a law against nail-biting. Only half the town bites their nails anyway, so it shouldn't be too hard, and then we could be friends with half the town, instead of only a fourth of it. What's even better, we wouldn't have to dislike anybody. The idea practically sells itself!”

So you and your politician friend set about devising a way that you can create a law that will effectively outlaw nail-biting. You recognize that not everybody who hates nail-biters necessarily believes that nail-biting should be forbidden, though. So you'll have to make the law seem fair enough to appease the ice-cream eaters who don't want to punish the nail-biters, since they bite their nails too. You'll also want to hedge your bets by making some of the neutral folks see the advantage of your law.

After long debate, you decide that you will paint society as the victim, in order to appeal to everyone's better motives. Nail biting is unsanitary, and passes disease, you will argue (whether this is true or not is immaterial, it is a reasonable conclusion that's easily believed). Even worse, you say, children of nail-biters will tend to bite their own nails too, making the next generation sicker as well!

Oh, the humanity!

So, with good victims to protect, now you need to appeal to fairness. Jail time will be out of the question, since nail-chewing is not currently a crime, and you'd never convince people that it's bad enough to warrant a stay in jail (at least not the first time you introduce the law). I'll leave the decision to you as to what is the best way to be fair:

a) require that anyone caught chewing their nails be forced to wear a bright red headband when out in public

b) require that anyone who chews their nails pay a “chewage tax” of $10/day any day they chew

c) distribute free nail clippers and files at the local department of health and in schools and hospitals, simultaneously running advertising campaigns that explain the terrors of nail biting

d) chop off everybody's nails and burn their cuticles so nobody ever has nails again.

Remember, you've been able to show that nail-biting is not only annoying, but is also harmful (the veracity of your claim is irrelevant, you only need convince people that it's true). You also can benefit personally from making fewer people chew their nails.

Okay, make your decision before you move on. Write it down.

Let's examine each of these possibilities now:

a) This is a social incentive against nail-chewing. The costs are low, and you do nothing to address whether people bite their nails in the privacy of their homes, but you certainly expect that fewer people will be caught biting their nails in public if they have to wear those stupid red headbands. You won't make any more friends this way, but you'll be less annoyed all the time.

b) This is an economic incentive against the habit. You'll bring in lots of revenue, which could be used to fund the schools, or pay for a plan like c). Of course, some people will be able to afford the tax and keep on chewing, but the majority of people can't spare an extra $3650 per year, so they might rein in the habit. Then again, they might just cut back on public chewing.

c) This is a negative social incentive like a), but is cleverly disguised as a social-benefit program. The program will probably cost money, and is unlikely to be helpful on its own. However, it's easy to argue the upside of providing free services that address a sinister issue like fingernail-chewing. It's also hardest to call unfair, as it leaves nail-chewers with no excuse for not stopping their dirty habit.
You've provided ample free resources to help them kick the habit.

d) This is a powerful preemptive move. There's little room left for choice, but you've absolutely solved the problem. What's better, it's perfectly fair, in that it treats everybody equally. Your town can be happy again.

So what's the best way to address the issue of fingernail-chewing? Have you changed your mind from what you wrote down? You can change your answer now, if you like, but I'll present some downsides to each option, so choose carefully

a) This treatment is not perfectly equitable, as it treats some people differently from others (you might argue that that's the point). What's worse, this is potentially a self-segregating solution. You might find that instead of a town of otherwise similar people who variously annoy each other, your town will be divided into the red- headband side of town, and the no-headband side of town. While the division might not be that immediate, or that drastic, social segregation occurs easily, and is likely to be expedited by this sort of measure.

b) This option could be unfair because you are imposing a fee on a behavior that is perfectly legal. Certainly, people could avoid the fee by not chewing their nails in public, but if they have been chewing their nails for years and enduring nothing worse than the angry glares of non-chewers, it is more than a little arbitrary to suddenly decide that they should pay (literally) for their habit. Some people might even like chewing so much that they don't stop at all, despite the fact that they can't afford the tax. That could drive people into poverty simply because they don't want to stop chewing their nails. Maybe that's their fault - but perhaps the moral burden is shifted to you for having passed the law.

c) This is superficially a fair solution, especially if the costs are paid by a plan like b). Then again, that would mean a fair plan is funded by a less-fair plan, but issues of relationship like that are beyond the scope of this experiment. The real problem here is that taxpayer money is being put towards a cause that is of debatable merit, and the final result is the least effective of any of the options. This is a bit of a money-pit, and what you gain in fairness you lose in effectiveness. In fact, you and your politician buddy might only tack on an option like c) as an afterthought, in order to buy a few more of the “neutral” votes. It's unlikely that this is going to be your primary method for combating fingernail-chewing. It's just not dramatic enough, you know?

d) This is a brilliantly fair solution. Everybody has their rights infringed in equal measure. The problem is, most everybody would balk at the idea of state-mandated cosmetic surgery. To gain support for this sort of measure, you'd have to make the perceived risk of nail- chewing far greater than the tangible harm caused by forcing people to have their nails surgically removed. Good luck with that one.

There's another option that I didn't give you, of course; and you may have thought of it yourself. It's the option you never hear about in the press; the option precious few politicians ever embrace privately, let alone publicly. Yet, it is the one that is guaranteed to be absolutely fair, causes no additional harm to anyone, and costs nothing to implement.

e) You could do nothing at all. This is the “conservative” solution, and possibly the best one. The problem is, people thrive on perceptions of fear and urgent calls for change. It's in our nature - I suspect that our ancient ancestors survived as well as they did because they learned to be paranoid, angry, mob-oriented little apelings. If there's only one tiger in your primeval forest, you're not in much danger from it. But you feel a lot safer assuming the tiger is behind every tree, just waiting for you.

And when you get home safely, you can pat yourself on the back for being so wise and cautions. Nobody has to know the tiger was 30 miles away at the time, sleeping contentedly. So let's look at some modern “tigers” that we've legislated against, I'll even include the methods used.

Guns - b) (though there's a loud minority that really is pushing for d))

Alcohol - b) and c)

Illegal narcotics - b) c) and d)

Smoking - b) and c), in many areas a) as well

“Unhealthy” foods - c), often b) or a). d) is appearing as well (ban on trans-fats, anyone?)

The list goes on.

The things all these have in common? The extent of their public harm is open for debate, though the perceived harm is universally high. All of them have also been legislated against through outright bans, social incentives, or taxes and fines. And all of them are vices. I proposed chewing fingernails as an obviously innocuous example, but what if I'd proposed religion (a personal choice with historically destructive tendencies), or charity (a potentially economically damaging activity that likely benefits the donor more than the donee).

You'd want to string me up for suggesting we should fine people for attending church, or that we should ban all charitable giving. But religion and charity are no less protected by the constitution than are guns, or greasy foods. Many would even claim that at least some narcotics are protected by the constitution (though current law says otherwise).

The point is, next time you are getting ready to vote for a measure to limit the freedom of someone else because “they're harming themselves” or “you have to think of the children” or “it just plain annoys me”, stop and put yourself in the shoes of the people you're legislating against. What if our town wasn't legislating against nail-chewing, but against ice cream sundae eating? What if the arguments in favor of the legislation were just as compelling, but you happened to like eating ice cream? Would you want the angry majority forcing you to live by their rules? I doubt it.

And once again, I fail at brevity.

ANTI-RACISM CONFERENCE PROMOTES RACISM

2009-04-20T18:24:00.005+03:00

BY SEACHRANAI

As all the major news outlets have been swift to report, a multitude of western leaders staged a walkout during Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s address to a UN Conference on Racism. The protest was sparked by the content of the Iranian President’s comments which were, mordantly so, racist in nature towards Israel.

On behalf of the world, we get it. You do not like Israel. You feel that Israel is itself racist toward the Palestinian people. Such is evident by the concluding statements of the 2001 Durban Conference that stated the same. Yet in light of these views, what good does it do to make openly racist comments at a conference on racism? Hypocritical, irascible words do not make the case for your publicly stated position on Israel. Quite the contrary, they betray your unwillingness at working towards a solution.

The organizers of the conference expressed their dismay that the United States did not attend a forum devoted to fighting racial prejudice and xenophobia. Yet Ahmadinejad’s words have certainly more than justified the boycott. I give credit to President Obama for expressing his personal support for the cause of ending racism, but publicly declaring that this conference does not provide an opportunity to meet such a goal.

At the end of the day, it saddens me to see opportunities to address real issues squandered and politicized, as is the case with the 2009 Durban Conference. Much of the hardship that the key stakeholders in this conference face today are due to the specter of racism, yet these leaders are too shortsighted, or self interested, to address it.

SOMEONE GETS IT

2009-04-16T15:44:00.003+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

There was an outstanding article penned by Jim Burkee in the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (of all places) that is among the first I’ve seen that really recognizes the rise of the young conservative movement for exactly what it is. You can read the piece here, and I’ll be making it a permanent fixture on the sidebar. Burkee’s analysis floored me with its precision; it felt as if he was talking specifically about the Children of the Revolution.

The heart and soul of his article is that Gen-Yers have been taken for granted politically by both parties. Democrats and liberals assume that our generation is tucked safely in their pocket. Republicans write us off as liberals with little if any grasp of fiscal policy. Burkee argues that our generation, weened on the ultimate expression of unfettered liberty, the Internet, is more libertarian than liberal. Indeed, our primary concern is freedom. Consistent freedom. And as yet, neither major political party is offering it. Gen-Yers tend to be more liberal on social issues, such as legalization of marijuana and gay marriage, but favor limited government, smaller taxes and conservative fiscal policy, such as the privatization of social security. We regard all politicians with suspicion.

The first party to recognize our generation for what it is and approach us on our terms stands to seize the political high ground. But both have a long way to go if they intend to do so.

WELCOME TO THE WATCH LIST

2009-04-14T21:22:00.005+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

The Department of Homeland Security has issued an "intelligence" report dated 07APR09 that discusses their belief that the country faces a heightened threat from "rightwing extremists." I have read the DHS assessment and am simultaneously amused, disgusted and terrified. But the most important take-away from this report, which you can and should read here, is that it contains little to no hard data, merely speculation based upon repeated references to domestic terrorist activity in the 1990s. Indeed, it cops to this fact in the opening line, stating, "The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence…" Its definition of "rightwing extremism" is also vaguely articulated as "broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." You’ll note that nowhere in the DHS definition is the mention of the adherence to violence as a means to achieve political goals. According to the DHS, I am a rightwing extremist and subject to suspicion as I in large measure reject "federal authority in favor of state or local authority," …as did Thomas Jefferson.

I do recognize that rightwing extremism of a violent stripe does exist, has existed and has resulted in acts of domestic terrorism, such as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. White supremacists, fundamentalist groups and others do have a track record of murder, rioting and violence in general and warrant scrutiny. But to release an intelligence assessment that lumps rational conservatives in with those despicable sects as a potential threat to the national security of the United States is offensive and alarming, to say the least.

Where is the intelligence assessment speculating that far-left radicals may present a security threat in light of the Wall Street collapse? Why is the federal government not just as publicly casting a suspicious eye on anti-capitalist radicals, anarchists and others on the far-left fringe who might use the economic collapse as a recruiting tool just as handily as far-right groups? How can we not conclude that this intelligence assessment is politically motivated?

I can cast my gaze back and see a linear chain of events that makes this DHS assessment chilling. The bi-partisan push for the PATRIOT Act, supported primarily by Republicans but also the sitting Democrat president, Barack Obama, gives the federal government wide latitude to spy on US citizens that are perceived as a national security threat. Republicans short-sightedly favored the PATRIOT Act because they wanted to catch jihadists. Liberals and leftists may now see its value as a political tool. Perhaps I’m falling too deeply into conspiracy theory here (another sign of rightwing extremism according to the DHS), but when you can’t count the threats to your liberty without using your toes, you find yourself gazing into the abyss.

I entreat you to read this assessment if you haven’t already. All conservatives should know that some of their core beliefs (opposition to onerous federal authority, support of gun rights and the integrity of immigration law) are being lumped in with racism and economic protectionism as dangerous to American security. I can’t think of anything more sadly ironic.

THE OTHER CRAZY TAX PLAN

2009-04-08T03:23:00.006+03:00

BY CINCINNATUS

After Hariolor’s proffered abolition of taxation and certainly not to be outdone, I offer an alternative “crazy tax plan,” one that, like Hariolor’s, will certainly never gain traction but embodies a similar, Old Man Waterfall sort of democratic spirit. Like the Hariolor plan, this option would represent a significant shift from a representative republic to a direct democracy, which of course comes with risks. But I have always viewed the democratization of taxes and spending as merely an extension of the free market into government, which is always a good thing.

I
Think of this tax plan, which I’ll unilaterally dub the “Tax Buffet” plan, as a sort of 401K for investment in government services. First of all, it would require the institution of a flat income tax, which is simply a percentage of your annual earnings. For simplicity’s sake, let’s set it at 15% across the board (in reality it would probably need to be two rates, similar to the proposed Taxpayer Choice Act). Now let’s establish some critical figures. According to the US Census Bureau, there are roughly 180 million Americans between the ages of 20-64, within which fall the vast majority of wage-earners. Additionally, the median annual personal income in the United States is around $30,000.
I

The Tax Buffet plan would have 7% of the total 15% an individual/household is taxed go directly into federal coffers to be spent exclusively at the discretion and whim of Congress. Given the figures established above, that 7% of every tax-paying American’s income would amount to around $378 billion, which is a little over half of what the federal government spends on Defense alone ($650 billion).
I

Now here comes the 401K analogy. The remaining 8% of that 15%, which comes to roughly $480 billion, would be allocated by the taxpayer to federal programs of their choice, as delineated on a FY (For Year) Federal Budget Allocation Sheet (or something). This sheet, which would become part of the standardized tax forms completed by all taxpayers and submitted to the IRS, would perhaps be drafted up by the Government Accountability Office with input from the US Congress. The form would break out federal spending into clear-cut categories (Defense, Education, Infrastructure, Entitlements, etc) and permit the taxpayer to pick and choose which programs over half of their tax dollars go to fund. They can allocate in increments as small as half a percent and of course choose to contribute zero tax dollars to certain programs altogether.
I

By this method of taxation, the federal government is allowed a minimum of $378 billion to play with at their discretion, be it on social engineering or beefed-up defense. The remaining $480 billion in revenue, however, must be spent in accordance with the individual tax payer’s wishes. Oversight on the part of the GAO would of course be required in order to ensure compliance and no sleight of hand by the IRS or Congress. If the majority of Americans want their money to go to pay for entitlement programs, then so be it. It’s their money to invest as they wish. Likewise, the minority who oppose those entitlements will have the satisfaction of knowing their money went to pay for national defense instead. The Tax Buffet plan would turn a system that currently resembles a mafia protection racket into something more akin to actual private sector investment.
I

Due to some of the complexities involved, however, this plan has a few issues. It would be difficult to ensure that taxpayer allocated money does not end up paying for pork barrel spending or earmarks attached to appropriations in the category they chose to subsidize. The oversight will be critical to be sure, but there is also a high risk that lawmakers will get up to shenanigans by finding “grey areas,” in which their entitlement initiatives may get lumped in with infrastructure due to some creative language (for examples see the stimulus bill). Additionally, as this plan is more democratic than republican (note the lower-case first letters), it runs the risk of disenfranchising a minority of the population altogether, particularly lower income Americans, who are only able to allocate a comparatively small amount to the federal programs of their choice, whereas wealthy tax payers can bring in more money to their favorite government initiatives. In this way, it may end up that the richest Americans, who represent a smaller segment of the population, balloon defense spending while the majority of Americans see the programs of their choice dwarfed despite their contributions.
I

However the benefits of such a tax policy far outweigh the negatives, in my view. Government will be forced to pitch programs directly to the American taxpayer. There will be no guessing as to what the will of the people is when they vote with their money.

THE DEEP MAGIC

2009-04-07T03:32:00.005+03:00

BY HARIOLOR

Citizens of Earth, I have a vision. Not an apocalyptic vision of massive solar coronal ejections bringing civilization to its knees, nor the dystopian diatribes I am so prone to level against the creeping doom of neo-socialist fascism. Nay, this vision is one of shining light, an elusive nova in my mind leading me down dark paths where others fear to tread. Finally it settles on the far horizon of my consciousness, resting over a lowly manger in which my philosophical savior lies - cold, naked and barely formed, but radiating a world-changing potential. Perhaps I exaggerate.

My vision, which likely is not nearly so new as I'd like to hope, given the virtual impossibility of having an original thought in a world where information is so pervasive, is that of a world (or at least a country) without taxation. Let me be clear from the outset - this concept is riddled with practical and philosophical holes, and is still little more than a slimy pupa in my mind, biding its time until it bursts forth as a butterfly of unparalleled magnificence. But incomplete and perilous as its present state may be, I proffer it here in the hopes that the collective wisdom of the blogosphere might prove to be just the heady mix of hormones my brave little changeling needs to complete its metamorphosis.

The concept itself is simple enough, born from having spent the better part of my formative years watching the nascent internet community experiencing the growing pains that accompany any awkward youth.
I

Within the mix of free content, soulless corporate flotsam, and epic innovation, there exist those foolhardy souls who persist at the sufferance of others. They offer some service, whether a webcomic, instructive video, or merely senseless blathering, and in exchange hold out their hands across the interweb, a bowl labeled “Paypal” grasped between their trembling digits, begging alms from those who would support their good works. The frightening thing is that this is often very effective.

Indeed, this method of virtual begging is so effective that non- profits like charities and political campaigns have made digital freeloading into big business. Clearly, they are onto something.

I
Though to the modern mind this may seem of little import, I am fascinated by the fact that the apathy of the average American can be pierced by little more than a simple request for an online donation in exchange for the perpetuation of an ostensibly worthy cause. They have stumbled upon some truly Deep Magic.

If this can be so effective for raising funds for causes as mediocre as artists and church picnics, let alone political campaigns, my logic said, then what on earth are we doing paying taxes anymore? And yes, it was logic that led me here, not some wild flight of fancy - allow me to clarify.

Taxes, at their most basic, serve two functions. At least historically, they are primarily a means for a governing entity to raise funds. Their corollary function, which in recent times I would argue is beginning to take precedence, is as a tool of social engineering. Now, as someone who believes strongly in the constitution and the wisdom of our founders, I initially hesitated at the thought of revoking one of the constitutional powers afforded government. At the same time, however, it is certain that our founders would not have imagined the world we live in today. Instant communication, widespread infrastructure, even the size of our population are all staggeringly advanced beyond what our founders had in mind. This is not the world for which the constitution was written.

Now, before you tear into me, let me be clear; I believe most everything in the constitution is durable even today, including taxation. What makes me comfortable making this proposal is that my idea can only serve to weaken government, not to strengthen it. And a change to the constitution that affords more liberty to all Americans is unlikely to be a bad thing.

The idea then, if you haven't figured it out already, is to eliminate taxes in favor of direct donations, made at any time in any dollar amount desired by the citizen. The idea would have to start small, at the level of municipalities, school districts, that sort of thing.
I

Indeed, at this level many communities are already not far removed from direct begging, the only difference being that public schools and small towns beg for votes in favor of levies or bonds (which become taxes), rather than for direct donations (sometimes it even does reach the level of direct begging!). The citizens of those small towns and school districts, depending on their belief in the quality of stewardship their money has received in the past, are more or less willing to vote to raise their own taxes. The problem is, once taxes are imposed, it can be difficult or impossible to repeal them. After all, who would vote to decrease funding for the children?

The answer, I think, is to make government, eventually at all levels, sing for its supper. Not just once every couple years when the voting cycle comes around, but constantly. This would require that government spending be more transparent, that funds for one purpose cannot be borrowed for another purpose, and that government bookkeeping be more readily accessible to the public and more audit-ready. It would also require a significant learning curve on the part of the voter, as I believe the donations should not be to a general government slush- fund, but should be line-item contributions to the causes individuals feel most worthy. This means that if you like using public roads, you ought to be donating to the fund for your public roads, so too with national infrastructure, defense, education, the list goes on. If you like having it, you'd better be donating to it or it might go away.

Inevitably, as the public gets acquainted with this new way of doing things, they would find parts of their government running critically short of funds. Ideally, the parts that are worthy would be rescued from the brink by concerned voters, while those that are not truly valuable to the voting public would waste away for lack of funding.

I
You can see where I'm going with this I think, so let's summarize the rest.

A few issues and potential objections I'd like to address, to acknowledge the realities of this situation, in friendly point-by-point format.

This plan may mean the majority of Americans would make few or no donations at all...

While I recognize that this may be true, especially early on, I truly believe that those government functions that cannot be replaced by the private sector or discarded entirely will find the funds they need.

I
Government will have to be leaner and smarter, but that's fine with me. Besides, most Americans in lower-income brackets, who presumably would be least likely to make significant contributions already pay little to nothing in taxes. In my plan, if a lower-income American can't afford to pay anything in taxes, but has, say, a child in the military, they can contribute all they can afford directly to the military, and need not give anything else.

Budgeting is impossible without general estimates of cash inflows.
I

Government would be able to estimate the levels of cash inflows based on historical data after a few seasons. Furthermore, I envision governments developing budgets based on estimated costs for programs and projects, then posting those budgets online. Much like any other fundraiser, the public could see in real-time how close a given department of government is to meeting its budget. This creates accountability. If the government is regularly meeting its budget requirements and is unable to complete projects on-time or without excessive cost overruns, you can bet the people will take notice if they contributed that money directly from their own pockets.

The existing tax structure is more effective and reliable.

Nonsense. The existing tax structure is built primarily around arbitrary determinations of fairness and various social engineering projects. Tax compliance costs are huge, and otherwise law-abiding individuals are tempted to become criminals to avoid the absurd and excessive taxation schedules that confront every American who makes more than a couple thousand dollars a year. The economy will improve as Americans can pay themselves and their creditors before they pay Uncle Sam. Private enterprise will have a bigger place in providing community services. Of course, the lawyers and accountants of the tax industry will be righteously irritated, but that's alright. Tax folks are usually pretty smart, they'll find other work.

There are more points and counterpoints I've thought of, many of which you will likely think up as well. As such, I will leave my rant here, and turn over my infant brainchild to your tender mercies. Be gentile, new ideas are fragile, but I believe this one is robust enough to warrant discussion, even if the practical challenges involved with eliminating and replacing the tax code are staggering.

REFRESHING DISCRETION

2009-03-27T19:08:00.003+02:00

BY SEACHRANAI

In an opinion piece today, the Wall Street Journal brought to light a previous unpublished letter from Wisconsin AG J.B. Van Hollen to Chuck Grassley. The letter was written in January as a response to comments Grassley made to all 50 state Attorney Generals urging them to put pressure on local financial institutions via state sanctioned punitive action. To quote the Journal, and the letter, Mr. Van Hollen wrote Sen. Grassley in reply:

“Rest assured we will evaluate on a case-by-case basis and make appropriate prosecutorial determinations…”

"However, I will not be initiating investigations through press releases, nor will I treat all corporate executive expenditures as presumptively wrongful. Wisconsin law certainly does not. Financial institutions (and other businesses) on the verge of insolvency are ill-advised to make unnecessary expenditures, whether to executives or otherwise. At the same time, contractual obligations are generally to be fulfilled, work should earn compensation, and there is no law in Wisconsin making a contract illegal simply because someone is well compensated. Absent specific information indicating a transaction is fraudulent as opposed to foolish, I will not use my office to threaten litigation in an attempt to micromanage Wisconsin's businesses. Corporate governance is generally a matter for shareholders, not public officeholders."

The Journal appropriately drew the distinction between Mr. Van Hollen’s thoughtful deference of our legal system, and the brazen political posturing of AG’s like Andrew Cuomo, praising Van Hollen for his respect for prosecutorial discretion and dubbing him the “Un Cuomo”.

It is refreshing to hear that someone elected to public office is dutifully upholding their oath to exercise the letter of the law. Too easily do elected officials bend to the whim of the masses, abandoning principles to feed on populist rhetoric and steal cheap political gains. It is my hope that a majority of the officers of our court system look, as Mr. Van Hollen does, with disdain at the bombastic political grandstanding that is all too common and Washington DC. If only more spoke out publicly against it.

Kudos to the Journal – Keep publishing these kinds of letters when they come up.

AN AVIDITY TO PUNISH

2009-03-23T15:42:00.007+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

I’ve watched with substantial unease and alarm as our government and media have whipped up public anger and created a frenzied mob bent on the utter ruin of a segment of their fellow citizens. That the government’s efforts are intended to divert that angry public’s attention away from its own blunders, missteps and corruption is undeniable, but does not diminish its effectiveness. The AIG debacle has dominated the news cycle for over a week now and culminated in the passage by the House of an ad hoc, 90% tax on the contractually-obligated bonuses. President Obama said he opposed that bill as unconstitutional last night in a 60 Minutes interview, which would be politically courageous and laudable in the eyes of conservatives if he didn’t then hedge by saying he believes he could support the alternative Senate bill, which is being crafted as we speak much to the same effect. As the differences between the legislation are unclear at this point, we can only wait until the Senate deigns it necessary to share the details with the unwashed masses that they have dispatched to stand outside AIG HQ with torches and pitchforks.

I understand the anger about the bonuses. I am angry and perplexed. From a business standpoint it is fiscally irresponsible and downright suicidal to reward key members of a department within your organization that is in all likelihood responsible for your collapse with exorbitant bonuses. The situation is made all the more outrageous due to the fact that we, the taxpayers, own nearly 80% of AIG and that our money was used to pay these clowns. But I’ve already discussed our AIG-related anger, its uses and abuses last week (see here). What I’m talking about here is the disturbing way in which our government and the media are targeting American citizens for harassment and excessive ad hoc taxation in a manner usually reserved for banana republics and reminiscent of the early 20th century rise of fascism.

Thomas Paine wrote, “An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” I find it sadly ironic that the same politicians who have clamored for the closure of Guantanamo Bay on civil liberties grounds are now leading the charge to target American citizens for extra-constitutional punishment and a rhetorical tarring and feathering. It is our country at its ugliest, when it gnashes its teeth and hurls rocks in frenzied, ignorant hatred while those who are meant to stay their hand supply the ammunition and stand by goading them on. For those of you who are angry at AIG and support the House’s 90% tax, which even President Obama regards as unconstitutional (for what that’s worth), let the final words of Thomas Paine’s quote ring in your ears: “…if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach unto himself.” In other words, when the political winds change it may be you who faces the public stoning.

OUR LYING, DISINGENUOUS GOVERNMENT

2009-03-18T15:36:00.003+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

The news media, the White House and especially Congress have been keen to whip up public outrage over the millions of dollars in bonuses recently paid out to company executives by AIG, a company of which the United States Government holds 79.9% equity. The bonus money, which came from taxpayer-furnished bailout funds, has become the focus of ire and the symbol of Wall Street greed and incompetence. We’re all angry about it. But before you let the government play you for a fool, let’s be sure we’re upset for the right reasons, as our friend

the littlecog points out.

First of all, don’t believe that Congress and the White House were caught by surprise by these bonuses. They knew they were coming and when they were coming. Bloomberg news reported on them in detail back in January (see here). Furthermore, members of Congress voted to add the “Dodd Amendment” to the AIG bailout legislation that provided an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009.” They let this happen. Members of Congress and the administration are lying, play-acting and disingenuously trying to get you so upset at AIG that you forget or ignore all of these undisputed facts, not to mention the trillions of dollars that they shoveled into AIG and others to make these bonus payouts possible.

Our anger at AIG also serves another purpose, and that is to provide fuel to the fire of the anti-capitalist agenda being driven by the sitting government. The more we ignore government malfeasance while we rage and decry AIG and demand punishment, regulation and, most importantly of course, our money back, the more we pave the way for further fascistic government intrusion into the market on a long-term basis.

At the very least, our anger will ensure the perpetual failure of the very businesses our tax dollars now go to subsidize. The government will use our raw emotion to place even further restrictions on AIG and other bailout recipients that will render them unable to entice the talent required to turn the companies around. Then they’ll apologetically crawl back before Congress and, like Oliver Twist, ask for more.

My rage is focused on our elected officials in Washington, who self-righteously feign shock and disgust and posture themselves as the vigilant stewards of our tax dollars, when in fact they deserve just as much of our contempt (if not more) as does AIG. They are lying. They know they are lying. They hope to make us dance to their music and insulate themselves from any accountability whatsoever. Just yesterday I listened to Barney Frank on NPR spluttering and lisping through a fire and brimstone sermon aimed at AIG and expressing his outrage and shock over the bonuses. Chuck Grassley of Iowa famously declared that the executives should apologize to the American people and then either resign, kill themselves, or both. What audacity.

Don't be made a fool. Don't tolerate this behavior out of your government.

"HOMICIDE BOMBER" IS REPETITIOUSLY REDUNDANT

2009-03-16T20:53:00.003+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Anyone else tired of the horribly redundant term "homicide bombers" that Fox News insists on using to refer to suicide bombers? "Homicide bomber" could refer to just about any person or persons who blow something up in order to murder someone, regardless of whether they kill themselves or not. "Suicide bomber" is a much more apt term, as it describes the means by which the bombing, which is obviously intended to kill people, is carried out. It's an obnoxious example of pseudo-conservative Newspeak that grates me with its utter uselessness.

CRAZY PILLS?

2009-03-16T17:55:00.002+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Am I taking crazy pills or does this analysis by the New York Times make absolutely no sense? And it’s starting to get more and more traction today, as I’ve already seen it discussed on Fox News this morning. How will outrage among average Americans over irresponsible business practice in any way derail or harm an agenda that, at its core, is about demonizing private enterprise and demanding more regulation? As long as the president continues to decry excessive executive compensation and wag his finger at AIG, people don’t seem to correlate continued corporate “large-living” with him. It seems to me that the natural result of the public outcry against this sort of thing will be to demand more regulation, more punishment. The only area that President Obama runs into trouble is with the people who’s concept of punishment is to demand that these corporations be allowed to fail (like, say, me) rather than receive continued bailouts at taxpayer expense. Up to this point, however, our collective voice has had little effect on the success of bailout legislation…

ALL CARROT, NO STICK

2009-03-15T02:10:00.002+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

The Obama education reform plan was unveiled earlier this week to somewhat mixed reviews, particularly from the NEA union. We’ve seen education reform trotted out by just about every administration in recent memory and beyond, and by and large it typically means increased spending on new education programs rather than correcting or eliminating non-working elements of our public education system. Obama’s reform plan is no different. He has managed to raise eyebrows by challenging the NEA on merit pay for educators, to which they are vehemently opposed. On this I applaud him. However, incentives are only half the solution. There must also be disincentives to ensure that education reform is truly effective.

Unless the president is willing to really go the distance with the NEA (rather than put up a brief fight and roll over when they bite back, as I suspect he will), he must draw a line in the sand and challenge underperforming teachers and the tenure system. As anyone who has been to the Northern Virginia DMV can tell you, employees tend to become underproductive and in many cases counterproductive when a bureaucracy shields them from termination (just one of many reasons I fear Universal Healthcare). Merit pay will only incentivize those who are already determined to succeed and contribute to achieve in a system in which there is no penalty for complacency. Those who care only for the steady paycheck that their tenure ensures (precisely the individuals at the root of the problem) might reach for some low-hanging fruit every now and again, but by and large they will be content to steer their steady and unremarkable course. In the private sector, these individuals would typically get a pink slip for their lack of drive and, most importantly, their lack of results. Until we are willing to do the same with our educators, education reform will only amount to throwing more money at the problem.

GETTING THE MESSAGE?

2009-03-11T22:28:00.004+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

President Obama has signed the $410 billion spending bill laden with earmarks, but held his nose while doing so. According the president, it’s time to get serious on wasteful spending. Pardon me if I remain skeptical. But perhaps, now that they’ve gotten the glut out of their systems, the Democrats are starting to heed the words uttered in our recent article, “Who’s Driving This Thing?” They understand that they can’t keep up this ridiculous and irresponsible pace of spending and nest-feathering. What remains to be seen is if they are going to do the right thing on spending or just look like they’re trying to do the right thing on spending.

According to this New York Times article, House Democrats will be enacting changes to restrict wasteful spending, including a 20 day review period for the White House to get a peek at legislative earmarks. What I find most intriguing about the promised reform is that it represents a deference on the part of Congressional Democrats to the president. Depending on how this “cooperation” plays out, President Obama may be asserting his unquestioned authority over his party and putting an end to speculation about a Pelosi/Reid power play. If things go badly, however, it could spell disaster. Perhaps the president is finally taking the firm hand that pundits have widely said he must in order to govern effectively. We shall see.

LAME JOKE LOST IN TRANSLATION

2009-03-06T22:54:00.006+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in an attempt at levity and charm with her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, presented him with what was supposed to be a "Reset" button today (see here). The gift was intended to symbolize the Obama administration's desire to start from scratch with the Russians rather than continue the relatively hard-line Bush policies of the past few years.

While an incredibly lame gesture not suited for diplomatic relations (particularly with Russia), it also turned out to be an embarrassment for Clinton, as the button bore the Russian word for "overcharged" rather than "reset." Clinton and Lavrov laughed it off after the Russian Foreign Minister told her flatly that she had "got it wrong."

WHO'S DRIVING THIS THING?

2009-03-06T16:08:00.003+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

GOP Senators put a stop to Harry Reid’s efforts to end debate and cast a final vote on the $410 billion spending measure that has received substantial publicity for its copious earmarks (see here). The move puts some elements of government under threat of a shutdown for lack of funding if a stopgap spending measure isn’t passed by this evening. It appears Republicans are finally willing to go the distance in standing up to excessive spending after seeing their party nearly annihilated as a result of six years of fiscal apathy. According to this article, a small cadre of conservative Democrats are also shaking their heads at the level of waste the spending bill represents, without whom curbing this largesse would be a futile enterprise. But Pelosi and Reid are firm task masters, and quite frankly it remains to be seen who is really leading the Democratic Party: the president or them.

At the very least, President Obama has demonstrated a very hands-off approach to the deeds of his Democratic fellows in Congress. Which is fine (from a separation of powers perspective), as long as he demonstrates the willingness to veto their legislation at the expense of party unity. Recent events, however, do not seem to indicate that this is the case. The president has so far shown himself to be a party man, paying lip service to bipartisanship while Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid shut conservative lawmakers out of the legislative process, craft and propose sickeningly wasteful and bloated spending measures, and attempt to force a vote before full disclosure of the details. With their current overwhelming majority in the House and tenuous dominance of the Senate, the Democrats can get away with this behavior on sheer numbers alone. But at what cost?

The $410 billion spending measure that was stalled yesterday is just the most recent in a steady march of federal payouts whose price tag defies reality and even comprehension. Reasonable people can debate the merits of the concept of government stimulus during economic downturns, and they have, but many agree that a large portion of the spending included in the stimulus package that was passed will have no stimulative effect. It is, in reality, shabbily camouflaged pork, clinging to a bare-bones stimulus that lacks direction or focus. After the heated stimulus debate last month, one would think the Democrats in Congress would tread softly on earmarks and pork. Moreover, President Obama’s much-touted campaign pledge to reduce earmarks and wasteful spending in Washington has tethered his party in large measure to fiscal responsibility. With Americans hurting now more than ever from the economic mess and the threat of their children and grandchildren living in financial slavery to the federal government looming with each new titanic spending bill, the issue is certainly relevant.

Which is why, from a purely political perspective, I can’t understand why Democrats don’t show more discipline on earmarks and spending. If they were to demonstrate real fiscal responsibility (and not just play-acting at carefully staged White House summits) and combat waste as publicly and faithfully as the GOP has decided to, they could accomplish three critical goals: actually reduce spending, fulfill the president’s promise, and steal the issue from the Republicans, who are clinging to it desperately and tenaciously because it’s all they have. Their refusal to do so, however, means that they are wholly focused on cramming through a liberal agenda that has been stifled for nearly a decade as quickly as possible. But as I said, this could come at great cost to them. For the sake of momentum, they are sacrificing refinement, caution and discipline. Their major legislation up to this point has been hastily cobbled together, laden with wasteful earmarks and unfocused, with money thrown here there and everywhere to pad liberal interests but ultimately without focus. Their supermajority will allow them to get away with this for a little while, but a backlash is coming. The midterm Congressional elections will be a critical indicator of whether the Democrats have as firm a mandate as they believe they do and how much leeway they have to misbehave. And as the president shows no willingness or ability to reign them in, the Democrats will certainly test their limits before 2010.

PHOTO OF THE WEEK

2009-03-04T16:37:00.004+02:00

I've never said Barack Obama wasn't a class act. Right on, Mr. President.

THE OBAMA FLIM-FLAM OPERATION

2009-02-27T19:00:00.004+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

I remember laughing at this Onion article in November. But as things play out with the current budget debate and the passage of the stimulus, I'm starting to wonder if this bit of sattire wasn't ominously prophetic. Rather than campaign funds, however, it appears the president will make off with trillions of dollars in spending on new programs during a period when this country is running its highest deficit in history and simply walk away, either four or eight years from now. He'll have robbed not only current American taxpayers but future taxpayers of ridiculously incalculable sums of money and stick them with the bill. I've tried to moderate my thinking just a bit, but as each day passes and more and more outrageous spending proposals are exposed in the president's budget, I become enraged. Is now really the time for $600+ billion in spending for a future Universal Healthcare program? Does the president honestly expect that money to be there when/if the program is eventually created?

That kind of spending, particularly during the president's disingenuous talk of fiscal responsibility, enrages me to no end. His promises of halving the budget by the end of his first term are entirely hollow; it cannot be done, not with the new spending that is being proposed, not even with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on those earning $250K+. And when it isn't done he is sure to blame it on either the economy or Republicans. Then what? Tax hikes on the middle class? If Obama wins re-election, there surely won't be any more budget cuts, except perhaps in Defense, and with a war escalating in Afghanistan there's only so much fat to trim.

So when the con man puts on his shades, peels off his (metaphorical) fake mustache and wig and walks away from the White House, we'll be left with soaring debt, out of control spending, and an inevitable and very painful tax hike that may well stagnate a recovered/recovering economy. We're being cheated, folks.

"HAVE YOU HEARD THE ONE ABOUT THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY SUMMIT..."

2009-02-23T18:41:00.005+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

The news this week out of the White House is that President Obama is planning to pitch a budget to Congress that promises to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term (see here). Today the president meets with 130 advisors as part of a “Fiscal Responsibility” summit, the fruits of which he loudly and publicly predicts will help to offset the unprecedented spending his stimulus represents. This all sounds wonderful on paper, but the facts tell a different story that should greatly concern conservatives.

First, the budget proposal the White House will sell in a televised address to Congress tomorrow will offer substantial cuts in defense spending. It remains to be seen how much of these cuts are a natural result of the winding down of hostilities in Iraq that occurred during the last year of the Bush administration and how much will be additional cuts that accelerate the draw-down in that country beyond what the current consensus deems appropriate. There may also be substantial cuts in other areas that aren’t directly related to the American presence in Iraq. If true, I would hope these latter cuts are judicious and minute, particularly as the president has announced his intention to deploy an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan in an escalation of that conflict. But I will reserve judgment until the full facts are disclosed on Tuesday.

What is of greater concern to me at the moment is that the White House plans to meet its deficit reduction goal by allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse on January 1, 2011. We have been speaking out ardently regarding this ill-advised decision, which until Saturday had not been publicly and firmly backed by the president, for quite some time (see here, here, here and here). I won’t belabor points previously made, but will simply say that raising taxes on engines of job creation during a recession is a terrible, terrible idea. But even more worrisome is that it has not yet been specified which Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire. Will it be only for those earning above the $250K that he targeted during his campaign, or will the cut-off be lowered? Regardless, it bodes poorly for the private sector and will assuredly lead to a further market plunge, as investor confidence has plummeted repeatedly in response to Obama’s economic policy announcements.

Finally, the “Fiscal Responsibility” summit is by far and away one of the most offensive farces the president has marched out since taking office. Following the irresponsible spending orgy that his stimulus package represents, he now finds himself tagged as a typical “tax and spend” Democrat. Needing to burnish his fiscal street-cred, he is holding this summit purely for show. His proposed budget is already in the can, as he’s scheduled to bring it before Congress tomorrow, so the gathering will clearly have no effect on it. What further undermines the legitimacy of the summit is the invitation list, which includes union members and advocacy groups, which at least to this conservative are the recipients of some of the most wasteful spending in government.

The president continues to disappoint conservatives and is intent to pursue the standard Democrat policy of cutting defense and raising taxes. Just the most recent demonstration in a long line that prove the president offers nothing new and certainly no hope, just “more of the same,” as he might put it. Unfortunately entitlement spending, which is wildly out of control, will remain at record levels, especially after the increases in the stimulus. If universal healthcare is to become a reality, as the president promises, it may well swallow up whatever gains are made by the budget cuts he proposes tomorrow. I’m not seeing any fiscal responsibility or clear vision by the president. His policies thusfar have shown him to be a political operative more loyal to his party than the prosperity of his country. His talk of bipartisanship has been smoke and mirrors, mere political cover for what turned out to be a purely partisan stimulus package. And now he has the audacity to assemble a “Fiscal Responsibility” summit that is simply window dressing. As disgraced former Democratic Congressman James Trafficant was fond of saying, “Beam me up.”

STIMULUS WATCH

2009-02-20T15:52:00.005+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

I was interested to see this article this morning that talks about some of the first jobs the stimulus program will create. Little surprise that among them are auditor and lawyer jobs. However, the real thrust of the article deals with the efforts to ensure the stimulus money is spent wisely. Apparently GOP lawmakers are setting up a “Stimulus Watch” (will this be akin to “Panda Watch”?), which will gleefully point out elements of the stimulus program that are spending taxpayer dollars wastefully. In order to head them off at the pass (I hate that cliché), the administration will be dedicating $350 million to stimulus oversight, which may ironically turn out to be one of the biggest wastes of money if it permits the inevitable wasteful spending to come. As former head of the Government Accountability Office (they have one of those?) David Walker points out, putting together a rigid set of conditions under which stimulus money may be spent before the spending actually begins would perhaps be wiser and more effective than setting up a review panel to point out waste after it’s happened. But comments like those are probably why he’s the former head of the GAO.

One of the most infuriating items in this article as pertains to stimulus spending is the comment that, “the stimulus will channel so much money so fast to some two dozen inspector-general offices, as well as a new Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, that it might be difficult to spend it all wisely.” I’d like to take a moment to point out that the rapidity of the spending is both idiotic and likely intentional on the part of the administration considering how much special interest money was packed into the bill. They’ll want the payoffs shipped out before any boards of review or GOP “stimulus watchers” can raise the alarm. If auditors or Republican lawmakers uncover the waste later in the course of their post-spending reviews, then we’ll all see an amusing political dance by the president and his party, but the damage will have already been done. Obama may have more to lose by waiting to spend the money, should the economy begin to show signs of improvement before the implementation of his stimulus program would allow him to take credit.

Since the Republicans have thrown down the gauntlet on the stimulus and staked a great deal of political capital on it, there is much to win and lose on both sides of the issue. Frankly the Republicans stand to gain the most, as wasteful spending will be inevitable and bountiful and easy to tie around the Democrats’ necks. Additionally, any attempts to sweep the waste under the rug by the Obama administration will be a further infraction of his already broken promises of transparency in his administration. But perhaps this is why Obama was so hands-off during the bill’s actual crafting, limiting his role to that of a snake oil salesman: he wanted the freedom to point the finger at Pelosi and Reid when the Republicans come out swinging. Still, the Republicans will have to deal with lingering memories of the spending bonanza that occurred under their party’s watch from 2001 to 2006 and the lack of credibility their arguments may have. But they’re banking on the outrage of the American people over some of the mindless projects their money will go to subsidize to push those memories and arguments aside. If the economy should begin to turn around within the next several months or even the beginning of next year, however, it will be difficult for Republicans to take any credit. Indeed, it may gravely wound them. But they would have been foolish to take a gamble like this, given the precarious nature of their current political situation, if they weren’t fairly confident that the stimulus wouldn’t solve our economic woes.

MICHAEL BAY'S "THE STIMULUS"

2009-02-18T23:21:00.004+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

I amused myself today by imagining the performance of our Congress during the stimulus debate as a stage or film production, each cast member carefully rehearsing their lines and delivering them to the audience to alternating laughs, cheers and tears. But was it a slap-dash, see-how-they-run comedy or a Shakespearean tragedy? I suppose that’s up to the viewer, but I had a laugh imagining it as one of Michael Bay’s special-effects-laden, depth-deprived action/adventure blockbusters, which are typically grotesque amalgamations of both comedy and tragedy (unintentionally, of course). We had an impending disaster (usually a comet, a robot or Nicholas Cage, in this case the economic meltdown) that drove the action, a secret plan by the government to stop it (the stimulus, crafted behind closed doors by Democrats), and an elite strike force (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) intent on putting the plan into action, while of course blowing up lots of buildings, speedboats, helicopters and personal savings accounts. Our villains: the diabolical Wall Street fat cats (perhaps they’re evil, shape-shifting robot aliens?) and their Republican minions out to block the stimulus in order to continue drawing strength by drinking the bountiful tears of the poor and down-trodden. Like all Michael Bay films, however, the clumsy and invariably over-dramatic dialogue on the parts of the protagonists turns the film into farce in the attempt to elicit emotions of fear, suspense and adoration. And like all of his Hollywood blockbusters, it leaves you with a lighter wallet, buyer’s remorse and, when the adrenaline-induced thrills fade away, nothing of value learned.

“HISTORY OF THE STIMULUS” or “HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE DEMOCRATS”

2009-02-16T17:15:00.010+02:00

BY BEN WHEAT

The 1,073-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (AKA the stimulus bill) will be signed into law on Tuesday by President Obama. Americans will have to wait and watch to see if it has a positive impact on the economy and their personal finances. Whether it will or not is a matter of vociferous debate, and certainly I have some thoughts about it. But setting aside the results (or lack of results) to come, the journey this bill has made from conception to passage tells us quite a lot about the political atmosphere under our new President and his party, none of it good.

For a start, the President made unwavering promises that the bill would contain no pork or earmarks of any kind except, perhaps, for some money thrown to environmentally-friendly interests. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged the same, in no uncertain terms, in mid-January. Toward the end of January, it was widely whispered that the bill had in fact become saturated with wasteful, special interest spending, the most notable of which was a $200 million allocation for family planning interests. Speaker Pelosi lamely attempted to defend the spending in a manner that shocked even casual observers: fewer children means less cost to the economy, which will have a stimulative effect. The contraceptive portion of the bill was hastily withdrawn after overwhelming criticism. Still, untold depths of monetary waste still lurked in the legislation, which remained officially unpublished for American voters to review, despite the titanic size of potential taxpayer dollars involved. Finally, late in the day on January 26, the bill went public. Reactions of disbelief at some of the measures included were quickly drowned out by the banging of the Speaker’s gavel when the bill passed 244-188 on January 28, without a single Republican vote.
I

When the dust settled from the House vote, public opinion began to shift seismically against the bill in its current form. President Obama went before the American people to defend the legislation and sharply accused critics of creating unnecessary distractions. He declared the debate on the bill over and demanded immediate action. In defense of the special interest spending in the bill, which he acknowledged, he lamented that no legislation is perfect and that the urgency of the moment called for speed over careful deliberation. On February 10, the Senate passed their own version of the stimulus with $70 billion in additional spending above and beyond the House version. Even moderate members of the GOP, such as John McCain, called the legislation a mistake and the debate anything but bipartisan. It garnered the bare minimum three GOP votes needed for passage.

Congressional negotiators from both houses worked to reconcile the differences in the legislation to create a single bill to present to the president. The Democratic leadership pledged to publish the bill for the American public (and legislators) to review a full 48-hours prior to the final vote. In keeping with their behavior up to that point, they instead posted the bill around midnight the night of February 12th (see here). The final proposed legislation included several last-minute additions. Early in the afternoon on February 13th, it was sent to the House floor for a roll call vote. Most legislators had little time to review the final language of the legislation prior to casting their vote, as many GOP representatives complained during the brief debate before the roll call. The bill passed the House, once again, along party lines, 246-183. A few hours later, it passed the Senate 60-38, with Senator Sherrod Brown (D–OH) flying back to Washington to cast the critical 60th vote in favor following his mother’s death.

I’m certainly not a party man myself (see here), and of course I doubt the genuine motives of any politician, particularly those that have served more than two terms in office. But here we have a clear demonstration of the difference in conduct between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats have, for the sake of quickly providing economic aid to average Americans who are hurting, rushed through legislation in a closed-door, partisan manner despite all promises to the contrary. They have laden this legislation with spending that represents a wish-list of frustrated Democrat projects for the last decade. The Republicans have stalled the legislation where possible and urged open debate and full disclosure to the public, opposed the vast majority of the spending included and called instead for more sweeping and permanent tax cuts.

Now certainly being the opposition party changes a lot of things. And many of the GOP lawmakers now railing against wasteful spending are the same people who rubber-stamped the largesse of the Bush administration. Nevertheless the GOP was the only major party standing firmly in opposition to the stimulus. That’s a huge change from the spineless behavior of the GOP since 2006. If this re-conversion to fiscal responsibility is coupled with a major purge of the old-guard leadership in favor of younger conservatives, as the election of Michael Steele to the RNC chairmanship portends, then they may be on the long road to recovery.

But for now, we’re all living under the rule of the “Party of Change.” And if the stimulus bill is any indicator, that change will come about clumsily, expensively, and largely behind closed doors.

TEACHING CONSERVATISM: THE FIRST AMENDMENT

2009-02-13T23:27:00.010+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Let me start by saying that it is my fervent hope that this particular article in the Teaching Conservatism series is entirely superfluous, that what follows is nothing new to the reader, that a clear and accurate understanding of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution can be assumed on the part of all citizens. It is my gnawing fear (borne from careful observation of my peers) that this is not the case, however, that spurs this article’s publication.

The First Amendment concerns what is commonly referred to as our freedom of expression, encompassing our free exercise of religion, speech, publication, peaceable assembly, and petition. As with all ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, it is an explicit expression of the limitations of Government’s authority over the individual rather than a bestowing of rights upon the people.

Let us begin with free exercise of religion. It was the concern of many of the Founders, particularly Jefferson (who in fact had no involvement in the drafting of the United States Constitution, contrary to common belief), that the new American government might, by establishment of a state-sponsored religion or Church, not only coerce and persecute its own citizens but pervert religion itself for political purposes. The First Amendment was intended to unambiguously protect the right of the citizen to be secure from Government harassment or abuse due to his faith or lack of faith. Religious freedom is further protected in Article VI of the Constitution, which states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” In other words, Government cannot circumvent the First Amendment by packing the legislative, executive or judicial branch with religiously homogenous officials that would amount to de facto rather than de jure religious establishment.

While it is clear from the writings of the Founders that the Constitution was intended to establish a separation of Church and State, debate has nevertheless raged over the years as to what form that separation should take. Do religious displays on Government premises, for instance, represent sponsorship of that particular faith? Do the words “In God We Trust” emblazoned on our currency do the same? There are many who adamantly argue that they do. Conservatives, however, typically understand the Establishment Clause as the official establishment by act of Congress of a state-sponsored religion or Church. More to the point, we feel that any sponsorship of religion by Government that has a compulsory element by which you are forced to exercise a religion against your will represents a clear violation of the separation of Church and State. The words “In God We Trust” do not compel atheists by law to attend church or Muslims to refer to “Allah” by the Christian nomenclature of “God.” Religious displays or signs advocating atheism on Government property likewise do not represent religious establishment, so long as petitioners of all faiths are permitted to have displays should they so choose.

Regarding freedom of speech, over the centuries litigation and legal interpretation have settled with relative clarity most of the grey areas in the language of the amendment; as is always the case, your inalienable rights exist insofar as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. For instance, from the beginning this amendment was understood not to protect libel, slander, perjury, or copyright infringement. More recently, in the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), the concept of “imminent lawless action” was established, by which free speech is not protected if it is likely to cause a violation of the law faster than a law officer can reasonably be summoned to the scene. Other recently established limitations exist, such as the Miller test, which is used to censor “obscenity” according to community standards. Beyond this, your freedom of speech is boundless. You are free to openly criticize or praise government, society, individuals, and institutions. You are even free to lie, so long as those lies do not constitute libel, slander, perjury or incite “imminent lawless action.” Freedom of the press goes hand in hand with freedom of speech, in that citizens are at liberty to broadcast their free speech to as wide an audience as cares to listen, be it by print, internet, television, radio or otherwise.

Real conservatives embrace freedom of speech and the press, as it represents the most potent weapon against tyranny in our republic. The power to inform and be informed remains the determinative factor of who truly governs in any society. With this power, however, comes the power to dis-inform. While insidious, this power remains constitutionally protected (within the aforementioned limits), as the People and not Government must remain the final arbiters of what is true and what is not. As Jefferson, the father of our conservative movement said in his first inaugural address, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Consequently, the conservative answer to bias or untruth in the media is refutation through participation in public discourse rather than censorship of the offenders. Hence this blog.

Freedom of speech and the press fascinates me the most, primarily because even the Founders who drafted the First Amendment disagreed upon the extent to which this right was constitutionally protected. In 1798, in the thick of the Quasi War with France, President John Adams and the Federalists in Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts to protect the federal government from “domestic enemies”. The Sedition Act made “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government and its officials illegal. Numerous newspaper editors were jailed and fined for criticizing the president and his administration. Fortunately the Act expired in 1801, before it could be challenged in court (jurists have widely agreed that any such challenge would have carried the day).

Nevertheless, the debate over the enforcement of “truth and accountability” in the media astoundingly still rages just as it did then. The focus of modern ire is talk radio and internet blogging. The Fairness Doctrine, which was an FCC policy from 1949-1985, compelled radio broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints to their own on their programs. There is talk on the part of many Democrats (including former President Clinton) of reinstating this policy by act of Congress. While the Fairness Doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court decision Red Lion Broadcasting Co v FCC (1969), conservatives typically feel that compelling speech on the part of private citizens or interests is just as unconstitutional as restraining or punishing speech. Especially with the diversity of modern media, opposing viewpoints are ever-present and freely articulated should citizens seek them. Moreover, placing the arbitration of what is true or not in the hands of Government rather than the People is anathema to the intent of United States Constitution.

Finally, freedom of peaceable assembly and petition are the second-most potent weapons (next to speech/press) in the arsenal of the citizenry. They permit American citizens to demonstrate by show of numbers the support for an idea or communicate ideas freely and directly to large groups of their fellow citizens. Freedom of petition similarly allows citizenry to demonstrate numerical support for a grievance to Government. Without the freedoms of peaceable assembly and petition, Government may dismiss any opposition movement as fringe discontents who constitute a minority, just as tin-pot dictators continue to do all over the world today. Furthermore, just as with the freedoms of speech and press, assembly and petition permit opposition to Government to organize rather than be fragmented, disparate and ultimately powerless.

Real conservatives celebrate the First Amendment, just as they celebrate the Constitution as a whole, without reservation. We are not fundamentalists clamoring for state-established religion. We do not advocate the muzzling of political opposition or dissent. Indeed, in recent years we have become the voice of opposition and dissent. We insist upon the freedom to organize, assemble and demonstrate our strength to our Government, just as we insist that these freedoms be accorded to our political opponents. Our movement is predicated on the free exchange of rational ideas.

CREEPY

2009-02-11T22:58:00.004+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Anyone who saw President Obama's town hall meeting in Ft. Lauderdale knows what I mean when I say there were some supporters in attendance that were downright creepy in their fanatical devotion. Case in point, Mr. Julio Osegueda. The event itself seemed more like the line to see Santa at Macy's than an actual town hall; numerous individuals came forward to ask the president for... stuff. One homeless woman, Henrietta Hughes, asked for a house and a new car. Julio Osegueda asked for better health care benefits at his job at McDonalds. When grovelling supplicants come before the President of the United States asking him to favor them with gifts, you know the country has taken a wrong turn somewhere.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TRUTH ABOUT STIMULUS AND THE DEPRESSION

2009-02-11T22:46:00.004+02:00

BY SEACHRANAI

Jia Lynn Yang, reporter for Fortune magazine, addressed this morning a discussion which has gained more and more footing in the last few years: the academic critique of FDR’s New Deal, and its actual impact on our economy during the Great Depression. During the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt instituted a number of “shot in the dark” stimulus programs aimed at treating various symptoms of the country’s economic collapse. Many modern economists have posited that FDR overreacted, and the recession following the boom of the 1920s would never have escalated to a depression were it not for The New Deal, a concept Yang adroitly points out is the antithesis of what we were taught in grade school history classes.

In The truth about stimulus and the Depression, Yang does a good job of summarizing one major critique of The New Deal: Roosevelt’s treatment of labor and business relations. The article presents some good statistics, but doesn’t speak to them with the seriousness that numbers of their magnitude might otherwise warrant. She establishes government policies restricting the flexibility of labor markets resulted in wholesale prices that rose 23% in two years (a very large number), but manages to avoid using the word inflation.

On the reverse, she cites FDR’s Civil Works Administration as employing 3.6 million people and demonstrating a possible correlation to increased spending and decreased mortality rates. What goes unsaid is the fact that these were not permanent jobs (the program ran for less than a year), and that it cost the government more than twice its initial price tag (over $1 billion dollars in the end, which is a lot in 1930s dollars).

One major factor that is not even addressed is Milton Friedman’s critique of the decade’s monetary policy, which demonstrated an abysmal lack of understanding by political leaders of the day (a good synopsis of the depression from Friedman’s view can be found here). A related but varying hypothesis put forth by the Austrian School attributes some of the blame to malinvestment, or government action redirecting resources in non-rational and unproductive ways (though few currently subscribe to this view).

So what’s the moral here?

Yang asks that very question, and comes to the conclusion that because some of the New Deal’s programs managed to stem some of the economies bleeding, we should look past the fact that other programs turned what was otherwise a harsh but treatable wound into a gross trauma in the first place. I must argue a different moral. The Great Depression and the New Deal provide us a perfect example of why throwing a trillion untargeted dollars at a problem is a terrible idea. When government becomes involved, history clearly shows its capacity to do wrong vastly outweigh its capacity to help. And if politicians must do something, as Arlen Spector (R-PA) claimed as the reason he had to vote in favor of our stimulus package, they should not be putting haste before prudence to get the bill passed “as fast as humanly possible” (quote from President Barrack Obama). Any action should be deliberate and targeted at causes, not symptoms. We are in a recession right now – and we have only ourselves to blame if it becomes more than that.

IN DEFENSE OF IDEOLOGY

2009-02-11T04:53:00.005+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Idealism has taken a bit of a beating lately in American politics, particularly in discussion surrounding the stimulus package and economic recovery. According to many in the media and the new administration, for the sake of our nation we must enter a post-ideological era, where good policy should be based upon whether it works rather than whether it’s good for America’s long-term health, or even legal. Some in the conservative community have even echoed or applauded these sentiments, putting aside ideology in deference to “getting things done.” I am not one of those conservatives.

I don’t know if many people have stopped to consider what a post-ideological era really means. Results-based policy covers a whole manner of sins. For instance, the PATRIOT Act works; it catches terrorists and provides critical intelligence. It’s also an infringement upon the individual liberty of American citizens. There are lots of things that work in the short-term as well that are doomed to long-term failure, such as social security. The efficacy of a proposed policy must always be tempered with whether it is constitutional. Hence conservatism.

Times of crisis, when emotions run high, are when conservatism is needed most. These are the times when politicians, well-meaning or otherwise, attempt to seize more power. In the infancy of our nation, Jefferson’s Republicans were the voice of opposition to the Federalist government when war with France seemed inevitable. The Federalists, in an attempt to end partisanship for the sake of national unity (i.e. – create a post-ideological era), passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made criticism of the government illegal. I truly believe a similar effort is currently underway, with liberal rhetoric increasingly aimed at stifling opposition. I am deeply concerned and annoyed, for instance, that the president has unilaterally declared the debate on the stimulus over, calling for passage now. Even more disturbing is the renewed talk of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that represents the greatest infringement upon free speech since the Alien and Sedition Acts.

National unity is essential, but as Americans we have to sack up and remember that open debate and civil opposition aren’t going to destroy us. Politicians have been advocating for a post-partisan America since the nation began, and in nearly every case these politicians have been members of the governing majority. Consequently their concept of post-partisanship is typically just one-party rule.

THE SPELL IS BROKEN

2009-02-06T22:39:00.005+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS
I

There was an excellent piece by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post today (see here) that expressed my feelings regarding the vanishing Obama mystique. For me, the tenuous honeymoon with President Obama is over. I have been determined to be even-handed and judge him by his actions rather than his words. Now, with only three weeks into his term, I have resigned myself to the gnawing fears I had suppressed for the sake of objectivity: there will be no “new politics,” no end to special interests in Washington, and no era of responsibility, fiscal or otherwise. There will be spending, spending and more spending, and a consolidation of power on the part of the federal government. Why the president gave Congressional Democrats so much leeway with the stimulus bill, which they used as an excuse to cram the legislation full of the most shameful pork imaginable, is beyond me if his intentions were and are genuine. I am forced to conclude that his intentions are purely political. And his return to the fear-mongering rhetoric he promised to leave behind, as Krauthammer deftly points out, only underscores the point. The president has grown petulant at the exposure by conservatives of the rampant waste in the stimulus package, and even more furious that it has stalled. Polls increasingly show the American public more and more opposed to passing the stimulus in its current form (see here).

As conservatives, we must brace ourselves for what is surely to come. The next stop for the Democrats in government will be universal healthcare which, once accomplished, will never be undone. They will hold hearings on the Fairness Doctrine in which talk radio hosts will be hauled before committees and forced to explain and justify their free political speech. They will eventually raise taxes on corporations in an attempt to stave off some of the financial ruin that will eventually result from their spending-spree. Our children will foot the bill for a whole new array of entitlement programs that will pick their pockets. We have to stand against this. No more illusions, folks. The president isn’t interested in middle ground unless there is political gain. We must doubt his intentions. Get ready to voice some loud opposition…

OVERSELLING IT

2009-02-04T18:24:00.006+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

According to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, every month we go without passing the stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs. Just FYI, the population of the United States is roughly 304 million. You're trying too hard, Madame Speaker. Just sit out a few rounds, please.

Watch her atually say this here.

Thanks to Luscus for the video.

POPULISM IS A HARSH MISTRESS

2009-02-04T15:14:00.005+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Ah, populism. It can sweep you into the White House with popularity unseen in ages… and it can destroy you when you try to appoint your limousine liberal hack friends when you get there. When multiple, high-profile political appointments you make are beset by serious tax problems, one of which involves a limousine driver and a defense of “but I’d gotten so used to being driven around…”, and then a safety net of the “clubby way” Senators treat one of their own (as this article points out) that would ensure confirmation, you're on thin ice. And for President Obama, the ice just broke.

This Daschle business ended very badly, and it just goes to show that when you play to the crowd’s financial suffering, promise sweeping reform and then turn around and appoint tax cheats and lobbyists that you stand by unwaveringly (aka business as usual in Washington), you get burned. This hurts the president quite a bit politically, and by the admission of some of his supporters in the Senate it hurts his Universal Healthcare momentum as well. It could also make any attempt on his part to raise taxes on middle class Americans, should it come to that, even more difficult. I'm not going to pretend like these setbacks upset or disappoint me. But I imagine his wounds will heal quickly, particularly after his mea culpa on NBC, a move that his unapologetic predecessor would never have made.

Still, the stimulus bill is not helping the president either now that the details are on the street and his promises of a pork-free package have proved empty, as we predicted they would (see here). GOP senators (except of course for Arlen Specter) seem to have found some backbone for the time being and are blocking some of the spending measures in the bill, such as tax breaks for Hollywood movie studios (see here). But their resistance won't go on forever, and eventually a massive bill, trimmed down only slightly, will pass the Congress and land on President Obama's desk. When he signs it, he can count on a boost in his approval ratings, which have plummeted from 80% to a paltry 60% in a matter of one week.

SIGNS OF IMPROVEMENT

2009-02-02T16:34:00.008+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Congratulations to Michael Steele, the newly elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee. As a young conservative, I have to admit that I was pulling for him. While I still affiliate myself with neither the Republican nor Democratic Party, I do believe that the Republicans are starting to get the message of the 2006 and 2008 elections and get right on conservatism (no pun intended). And by that I mean real conservatism of the sort espoused by this and other blogs (see "Blogs of Note" section on sidebar), not “compassionate” or neo-conservatism (for the distinction, see here and here).

The Children of the Revolution first recognized Steele’s potential briefly in an article entitled The Bizarrobamas. Mr. Steele comes from humble, self-made beginnings and started life as a Democrat. As a convert to conservatism, he brings a fresh, intelligent style to his discussions of what being conservative really means. Furthermore, since his ascendance to leadership first of GOPAC and now the RNC, he has been a champion of teaching conservative principles (something that we at COTR are very big on) and recruiting young conservatives to run for local elective offices across the country. He has distanced himself from neoconservatives by opposing a federal amendment banning gay marriage, urging the issue to be left to the states and calling it a “low priority.” He also was among the first to call for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation as Secretary of Defense, saying he “wouldn’t be my Secretary of Defense.” He has repeatedly urged spending restraint and tax reform that makes tax relief permanent and simplifies the tax code.

However, he has some of the defects of Republican Party loyalty. He took a hawkish stance on Iraq and declared that he would have supported military action even if there were no weapons of mass destruction. He is also an ardent supporter of the War on Drugs. He holds some moderate views as well, and is supporter of affirmative action and upholding Roe v Wade on stare decisis grounds (which many conservatives typically oppose as bad law, holding that abortion should be left up to the states), though he is personally opposed to abortion.

Nevertheless, taken on the whole the election of Michael Steele as RNC Chairman adds up to a net positive on the part of conservatism and this blog in particular. We have ardently called for new, younger Republican leadership following the spending glut of the Bush years, among other things. Mr. Steele has led that particular charge since before it was popular in the Party. What remains to be seen is if he’ll change the Party or the Party will change him. I am aware of the possibility that his election came at a cost to his ideals, but hope that he was chosen for his character and beliefs rather than any particular demographic appeal he may have.

We’ll monitor his progress critically and closely…

200 STRONG

2009-01-30T03:31:00.005+02:00

POSTED BY CINCINNATUS

An encouraging item from the Cato Institute regarding the "consensus" among economists that immediate government intervention is needed to stimulate the economy. Thanks to Tony for the link.

A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

2009-01-29T17:00:00.009+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Believe it or not, yesterday’s passage of President Obama’s proposed stimulus package (see here)

has made me hopeful. Not because it passed, but because every House Republican and 11 Democrats opposed the bill. Citing the excessive spending measures and padding of bureaucracies that have repeatedly failed financial audits, Republicans are standing up to the measure and refusing to apologize. Their vocal opposition to the proposed inclusion of funding for family planning interests, which have no place in a measure aimed at stimulating the economy, has already forced retreat on the part of the Democrats, who withdrew it after a few lame attempts to defend it (see lame defense attempt here at littlecog). While Republicans still have a long way to go to win back my trust, it’s good to see them at least giving more than lip service to fiscal responsibility and conservatism.

And there’s a lot to stand up to. This editorial by the Wall Street Journal, which breaks out some of the unbelievably wasteful spending measures proposed by the Democrat majority that have absolutely NOTHING to do with creating jobs or stimulating the economy, has sent this conservative into a rage. Where are President Obama’s promises of a package free of pork now (see here)? Why isn’t he standing up to this? And why did it take the Democrats right up until the day before the vote on the bill to release the details (you can read the plan, in vague, rhetorical broad strokes, here)? Worse still is the closing of the WSJ op-ed piece, which addresses one of the big questions of the stimulus’ aftermath, which has as yet gone casually ignored: will these spending increases be the new “spending floor” for Congress going forward, or will they roll back the glut when the economy turns around? The answer is almost certainly that the stimulus package will become the new baseline for spending, as the special interests and programs receiving this money will scarcely accept cuts. And Congress will almost certainly attempt to quietly get away with increasing the budget in 2010 beyond the final stimulus figure; whether they will or not depends entirely on us.

I will be keeping a watchful eye on the Senate, which is set to vote on the House bill as early as Monday and is in the process of drafting a bill of its own as we speak, reportedly with an even higher price tag attached to it. But in the current climate, with Republicans maintaining a cogent and honorable opposition that uses Obama’s promises of bipartisanship and fiscal responsibility against him, I don’t see either the House or Senate bill passing any time soon. What remains to be seen is if the Republicans will suffer for delaying action of addressing the crisis, and if so what compromises they’re willing to settle for in order to cling to what little political capital they have left over from 2008.

As always, stay tuned…

RESPONSE TO THE "OPEN LETTER"

2009-01-28T00:19:00.011+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Many of you may recall a letter that I wrote and posted on this blog, which stated plainly that I would support no major party candidate until they had satisfied certain requirements, primarily in the area of fiscal responsibility, government reform and taxation. You can read the original letter here. Yesterday I was pleased to receive a response from Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), one of the recipients. It appears below.

While I was disappointed at the absence of the signed, glossy photo I had eagerly anticipated, I was pleased to have elicited some - any - response to the letter that I mailed out over a month ago. Nevertheless, I have to point out the glaring inconsistencies in Senator Brown's response in light of his voting record, which you can review here. While Senator Brown (or his intern) touts fiscal responsibility as a matter of great import, I see he has been a strong proponent of the progressive tax policy, massive increases on entitlement programs, and was a vocal proponent of the TARP. So while I appreciate his response to my letter, I am sad to say he has failed to meet the conditions enumerated therein and will not receive my support.

LUSCUS' 8 CONFLICTS TO WATCH IN 2009

2009-01-27T15:28:00.007+02:00

BY LUSCUS

Apologies for the delay, but I thought it would be a good idea to offer a few of my predictions for foreign affairs in 2009. They range from the hugely beneficial to the barely relevant to our daily lives, and pose a very diverse range of challenges to our new President and the world order.

The Predictions

1. Syria comes in from the cold. This has been bandied about for several years now, with America reaching out in 2005 to offer a 'Gaddafi' deal in the hopes that Syria will cease funding of Hezbollah and Hamas, refrain from interfering with Lebanon, and make peace with Israel in exchange for economic aid and access to the global market. Great Britain made a renewed push in November and December of 2008, with hopes that a Golan Heights deal would be the irresistible lure to a reportedly curious President Al-Asad.

This is part one of a three-step path to peace in the Levant. Syria and Iran have kept the Palestinian fire stoked with increasingly powerful weaponry for use against Israel. If Syrian support ends and some arrangement can be worked out with Iran, the table is set for a real solution to the Israel/Palestine question. Luscus is most in favor of a hybrid state (surprisingly similar to that presented by Pres. Gaddafi recently at a teleconference at Georgetown University, his published 'white book', and in an op-ed for the NYT).

2. Pakistan comes dangerously close to another military coup. Going against conventional wisdom, military intervention in Pakistani politics has generally been a net positive. While I will not dismiss the gross violations of human rights that have occurred in 1958, 1977, and 1999, the military has been a main secular force in promoting stability and limiting corruption. Aside from jailing the Chief Justice of their supreme court, Iftikhan Chaudry, Luscus has been a fan of Musharraf. With the current presidency of "Mr. 10%" Asif Zardari and the rise of the Paksitan Muslim League, several circumstances could arise in which the military might feel necessary to intervene: breakdown in US-Pakistan relations, political and military failures in the North-west Frontier Province and/or Federally-Administered Tribal Areas, or economic collapse. The latter has been stemmed by a $7.6b loan from the IMF, but in this economic climate, who knows if that is enough?

3. Civil war in Sudan. The 2005 peace agreement allows for a popular vote on secession to occur in 2011, but a combination of pressure for action on Darfur, spillover from the Congolese conflict or northern Uganda, and the issue of the mysterious arms shipment hijacked by Somali pirates from Kenya in September 2008 could lead to preemptive action by Khartoum. However, as President al-Bashir is already under indictment for war crimes, he may be hesitant to engage in further military action. But on the other hand he might feel that he has nothing to lose.

4. Military coup in Philippines. It seems that every year sees a new plot to overthrow President Macapagal Arroyo and the government of the Philippines. With rumors of US Special Forces being taught Tagalog (don't ask), this may be signal of preparation for a larger conflict.

5. Violence in the Crimea possible talk of secession, or Russian irredentism. With both the Russian and Ukrainian navies based in Sevastopol, this ethnic-Russian conclave of Ukraine might see movement to rejoin Russia (the Crimea was added to Ukraine in 1954 by Khrushchev should the political situation in Ukraine continue to deteriorate, or if Russo-Ukrainian tensions escalate due to the ongoing dispute over gas transfer and payments.

6. Resurgence of violence in Congo. This is perhaps the easiest prediction, what with three major conflicts inside or along DR Congo's borders.

First, that the winding-down of the Ugandan conflict with the Lord's Resistance Army (caused by the death of General Joseph Kony's spiritual inspiration, Alice, and breakdown of ceasefire talks between the government and Kony's son) does not occur, and fighting breaks out and spreads on both sides of the border. Second, the pursuit into DR Congo of Hutu militias by the Rwandan government, accused of complicity in the 1994 genocide of Tutsis. In 1996, the Hutu groups, fleeing from confrontation at the end of the Rwandan conflict, ran rampant through then Zaire, sending it into civil war and causing the transfer of power from Pres. Mobutu to Pres. Laurent Kabila (father of current president Joseph) and the re-naming of the country to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Lastly, this could be a pure collapse of government authority within the borders due to pressure from groups which have become entrenched and seeking greater permanence within the political structure.

7. Potential collapse of Mexican state. This is unlikely to occur in totality, but any increase in power held by the Sinaloa and Gulf drug cartels could threaten the government's legitimacy and definitely threaten state control of at least two of its northern provinces. President Calderon being a strong ally of the United States, as well as the proximity to our southern border and Mexico's rising preeminence in the flow of drugs to the US, expect increased American support.

8. Great Britain bankrupt. Considerable attention was paid during the collapse of Iceland's economy and government, what with the country's banking sectors making up a far larger share of its GDP than sustainable by its central bank. Other finance-intense economies have definitely taken notice. While this isn't 100% likely, the role played by 'the City' in the United Kingdom's economy is congruent to the situation in Iceland, albeit on a larger scale. Should the economic situation worsen, it remains to be seen how far the UK can remain solvent. Without a strong American manufacturing industry to fall back on (as has been the case in past crises), the increasing talk of joining the Euro should be taken as a sign of desperation. But on that point at least, the mood is not very different elsewhere.

Conclusion

I will insist that the best approach to our foreign policy is what I describe as 'Wilsonian Realism' that is, a realism moderated by an understanding that international consensus and international norms are wildly beneficial to our national security and to international stability at large. Its main aims are to provide for political stability through the promotion of international forae (formal or ad hoc), and a gradual focus of all countries towards good governance and responsible leadership, no matter the country's political form. Alternately, a Metternichian liberalism could be an apt description, of a slow and deliberate concert of powers-approach to promoting security, stability, and steady economic growth. Governor Richardson enumerated a similar policy in his Foreign Affairs article as a presidential candidate.

On a financial level, a new New Deal is foolish as a single package, as is now favored by the Democratic majority. A quick stimulus, combined with both the Judicial restructuring of mortgage rates to prevent foreclosures and a slow, gradual, ad hoc investment in our interstate commerce infrastructure (read: not simple handouts for individual states). As is a 'Bretton Woods II', as the global economy is too complex to be managed via a gold standard, or any alternative non-national reserve currency. Toward that end, greater transparency in accounting practices combined with a tightening of the screws on tax-havens and the abuse of FDI for market manipulation should put us on a more even keel.

This by no means is an exhaustive list - merely one that has compiled some of the major areas I have been following. Insight into the immediate futures of India and North Korea - perhaps the two elephants missing from the list - would be too complex, requiring a diplomatic sequence of Rube Goldberg proportions.

ONCE AGAIN, WHY NOT JUST THE TAX CUTS?

2009-01-26T21:15:00.003+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

I’m sure you’re all tired of hearing me say this, but this article in the Wall Street Journal reignited my ire over the concept of “stimulus packages.” It is, or at least should be, common sense that whenever the government is involved in spending large sums of money, special interests and political patronage always play a role. As Melloan discusses in this article, while the intention is to put more money in the pockets of average Americans, vast sums of money are siphoned off in the process as politicians throw bones to groups of influence. President Obama has promised that the stimulus package will contain only “green pork,” that is to say only pork for private interests that meet certain environmental standards. While this sounds lovely (to some), there is a problem: Obama has no legislative authority but the veto, which he will not use when the stimulus package hits his desk, bedecked with the usual pork we see out of Congress.

I’ll give credit where it’s due; a portion of the stimulus, about 40% of the total amount, will be (if promises are kept) aimed at moderate tax cuts. But I have to again illustrate that tax cuts + massive spending are not a recipe for national economic recovery. It has to be one or the other. And if the federal government is willing to sacrifice a billion some odd dollars for the sake of the economy, why not just make it all tax cuts? Something we learned from the Bush tax cuts (and Keynesian economists never seem to want to discuss) is that they led to increased revenues for the government, as private citizens were able to parlay the money they kept into greater wealth. So once again, if the government is willing to spend/sacrifice money for the sake of the economy, the opportunity should be taken to ensure that the fix will result in a sustained increase in the size of citizens’ wallets, rather than a one-time lump sum or a “leaky” transfer of wealth, as Melloan calls it.

Additionally, while tax cuts are essential and I applaud anyone who advocates for them responsibly, I have to take issue with the fact that the Obama administration still has its eye on either letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 5% (those who create jobs) expire or repealing them before 2011. Lawrence Summers has recently reiterated this goal after David Axelrod expressed it a few months ago. This is dangerous and, if it comes during the recession or its recovery, will have disastrous effects on all of us (as I have warned repeatedly; see here, here and here). The government can spend all the money it wants (and it is) on infrastructure and “job creation,” but if it saddles those in the private sector who actually create lasting jobs with inordinate taxes, it will all be for naught.

MON DIEU!

2009-01-22T16:11:00.004+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

I
Before I even start, this story is totally real, it did not come from the Onion. Apparently former French President Jacques Chirac's dog, Sumo, which suffers from clinical depression (no seriously, stay with me), mauled him yestereday. I'm going to let that sink in for a second.

I'm not sure how this story could get any more French, but I'm open to suggestions...

VOODOO ECONOMICS

2009-01-21T23:39:00.003+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m getting increasingly irritated by the element of mysticism with which politicians insist on treating our faltering economy. There doesn’t seem to be any coherent strategy at this point, which may or may not be a reflection of the lack of private sector/financial grounding most of our politicians have. This is the environment that led to the passage of the TARP. Our politicians seem to be treating the economic crisis as an angry volcano god, and they’re scurrying about throwing virgins (read: money) into the rumbling maw in feeble hopes of appeasing it. The nomination and ongoing confirmation of Tim Geithner as the president’s Treasury Secretary is proof of that. We’re told over and over again that he’s “the only man” that can get the country through the economic wilderness like a latter-day Moses. Just FYI, Geithner is one of the architects of the original TARP bailout plan. Perhaps we aren’t looking hard enough.

IT'S GOOD TO BE THE KING

2009-01-20T23:02:00.005+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

The best part of being president, of course, is the Chevy Suburban in your entourage with the gatling gun. Behold...

...the president's gatling gun Suburban escort...

Thanks to Luscus for the video.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS

2009-01-20T20:20:00.004+02:00

POSTED BY SEACHRANAI

Today Barack Obama addressed, as his predecessors have before him, the nation which has elevated him to its highest seat of authority. He spoke of faith (in God and each other) and our Constitution, the philosophical mortar and brick of our democracy, concepts which have been found waning from modern political discourse (expressly among this country’s left). This gives me hope. Below are his words this afternoon, as many forums of news and commentary will provide. I am curious as to what the thoughts of this forum are on these words. Do they resound in you like a choir full of hope, or do they ring empty as hollow rhetoric. From Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States:

My fellow citizens,

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again, these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control -- and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent Mall, and why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

PEACEFUL REVOLUTION

2009-01-20T15:47:00.004+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

Today we witness peaceful revolution, a bloodless transfer of power from ideological rivals that reaches back to 1801, when Federalist John Adams turned over the still unfinished White House to his political enemy and lifelong friend, Republican Thomas Jefferson. The campaign that preceded that particular election was, as was common in the day, one of rancor, lies and vicious character attacks (modern politics doesn’t hold a candle to the shenanigans our Founders got up to). For the twelve years preceding Jefferson’s inauguration, the American government had been dominated by the Federalists, who feared what they considered the radical ideals of the Republicans, which they were certain would devolve into mob rule and anarchy of the sort raging in France. They even attempted to dismantle the Republicans through Congressional legislation with the infamous Alien & Sedition Acts. Through it all, however, Jefferson and his Republicans persevered, and on March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson strolled casually to his inauguration as the third President of the United States through the streets of Washington to the Senate chamber. His inaugural address, considered by most historians to be his finest speech, was one of humility, political reconciliation, and broad hope for the nation’s future. If you will indulge me, I will cite the following excerpt:

“During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

Two hundred and eight years have passed since that day, and here we are again, watching the mantle of executive power being transferred from one man to another in peace and by the popular will of the people. No shots fired, no palaces stormed, as they were in the despotic systems of the Old World and the scattered nations of modernity where tyranny is allowed to dwell still. Despite our political rhetoric as Americans, where free and open debate is not only permitted but celebrated, the will of the majority must be and is respected, and all of our best wishes are bestowed upon our new president, regardless of party or ideology. But though we wish our new president well, those of us who opposed his election are no less resolute as a result of his victory. We will be the loyal opposition, Mr. President.

Let we at The Children of the Revolution be among the countless today that will offer you and your family sincere best wishes and congratulations, President Obama.

THE CALM OF DESPOTISM

2009-01-19T16:03:00.009+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

I’ve been reading quite a bit about the Founders and the American Revolution lately (per my New Year’s resolution), and as I learn more and more about the extraordinary men who led the charge for independence and the challenges they faced, I find it impossible not to juxtapose those tumultuous, uncertain times with our own. The events of our revolution weren’t necessarily extraordinary when laid against modern times; Parliament levied overburdensome taxes upon the colonists that restricted their ability to transact business and conduct trade, without the consent of the colonists themselves. After an overwhelming outcry from the colonists, some of these taxes were repealed, but others were implemented for the sole sake of assertion of the Crown’s authority over the colonies. When the Americans grew even more restive, the Crown suspended colonial legislatures and stripped the colonists of rights due even the lowest of British citizens. Colonists were, for instance, faced with the compulsory provision of quarter for British troops sent to occupy their own cities.

It isn’t really until the British pushed the American colonists to this extent that the events became extraordinary, not of themselves, but because extraordinary men rose up to defy the Crown and the greatest empire of the day. They did not know they would win. In fact, many expected they would end up dangling from a gallows. But they chose to challenge tyranny rather than quietly bear their heavy chains, not because they saw a betterment of their immediate fortunes (again, the gallows), but because the principles of human dignity and the tradition of British rule of law, which the Crown had now forsaken, demanded it. You (should) know their names: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Henry, Rush, Hancock, etc. They rose up and gave birth to a nation that has, despite it all, endured now for 233 years. But of course, you (should have) learned all this in American history class. What am I getting at?

What I’m getting at is a powerful and potentially depressing point. As I read the history of our nation’s birth, I look about our modern political landscape and ask the question: would any of our political leaders today have had the courage and wisdom to have risen up and challenged this sort of tyranny? Would they have even recognized it as tyranny? Would they have instead tried to bargain with tyranny, as many delegates to the Continental Congress hoped to do? I look around and find myself able to point out perhaps a handful, out of the 545 representatives, senators, justices and the president that make up our federal government. You may feel differently, but in the nation we have become, a nation of taxation, government largesse and intrusion, I fear that we may have already passed the threshold that our Founders would have tolerated. And even as I write that, I can hear the jeering of people of both political stripes: that the nation and the world was different then, that this country belongs to the living and not to the dead, and that the Founders never meant to have us be enslaved to their particular thoughts and systems.

While those criticisms are correct to a certain extent, they also miss the central argument and betray an unsatisfactory answer to my prior question on the part of the respondent. Our circumstances today, with burdensome taxes (borne most heavily by business), federal intrusion into every aspect of government, state government dependent upon federal subsidy, government surveillance of law-abiding citizens without warrant, and repeated overstepping of government authority, are very near to what the Founders observed in their time. Those who would say that we should ignore the Founders in changing times, that we should calm down and cool it, are implicitly stating that they would not have stood up alongside them and challenged the tyranny of the Crown had they been there. Today’s politicians would probably not stand up to heavy taxes or think them tyrannical, as they themselves levy them freely upon the citizenry. They clearly will not stand up to inordinate federal control, as they have seen to its entrenchment. They would not have stood up to King George and pledged their Lives, Fortunes or sacred Honor to the defense of liberty.

I’m not advocating armed insurrection, as I’m sure many of you are worrying. Thankfully the Founders did that heavy-lifting for us and established a system of government by which revolutions are bloodless. What I’m advocating is that revolutionary spirit fostered by men like Jefferson, that readiness to challenge government and be unyielding in the protection of our rights. I’m basically reminding you all that we must remain steadfast and not “calm down and cool it,” as I’m sure the Founders were advised to do by many (not least of all King George himself). Stay vigilant and steadfast. Don’t shy away from debate. Don’t assume the benevolence of government. Don’t give up the fight just yet. We have a lot of work to do together. Let’s start by asking our politicians, “Would you have affixed your signature to the Declaration of Independence, or would you have hanged those that did?” And make sure they tell you why.

OVERDUE THOUGHTS ON THE WAR ON TERROR

2009-01-16T16:02:00.006+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

On the whole, Mr. Miliband’s argument is sensible, but his closer, “Terrorists succeed when they render countries fearful and vindictive; when they sow division and animosity; when they force countries to respond with violence and repression. The best response is to refuse to be cowed,” triggered memories of militant pacifist comments made in the immediate post-9/11 days of my college experience to resurface. In turn, they led me to organize and lay down my particular thoughts on the War on Terror, which I realized had heretofore not been cogently expressed on this blog.

Let me be clear on two things. Government repression of the civil rights of its own citizenry is a wholly improper response to terrorism, and torture is both unacceptable and unreliable. Furthermore, the concept of continual warfare that could span generations is one that raises my conservative “spider-sense.” The Founders warned their posterity to avoid long or frequent wars, both for their devastating effect on humanity and for their potential to turn democratic governments into authoritarian tyrannies. I feel strongly that it is the responsibility of the citizenry to ensure that the government does not unnecessarily expand wars or trample the rights of its citizens in doing so. The American government is obligated to avoid war unless the country or its citizens are attacked or under direct threat. But I do understand reality: when we entered the era of nuclear proliferation and now the era of terrorism, fighting a war after it has come to American soil became an unviable option. Preventive measures have to be adopted, such as rigorous border security and, most important of all, a well-funded and well-equipped foreign intelligence apparatus that focuses on the human intelligence tradecraft rather than relying too heavily on technology. Our military should rightly receive a great deal of funding and remain the best-trained fighting force on the planet. It should be fearsome and overwhelming, but capable of nimble, surgical operations, such as those carried out by our special forces. And if we can get a missile defense program up and running that neuters the efficacy of ICBMs and tactical nuclear warheads, well then I’d be happy to help foot the bill for that too.

But the War on Terror walks a fine line, in my opinion. Invading Afghanistan was an appropriate response to the September 11 attacks. The PATRIOT Act was not. Invading Iraq was not necessary to defeating terrorism, but because we did, victory there is essential to doing so. I think that everyone can agree (particularly the Iranians, who perpetrated the deaths of countless American soldiers in Iraq with impunity) that the current over-extension of our military renders our foreign policy toothless in many cases. This will have to change, and this is where I agree with Miliband most strongly. The greatest fallacy of the War on Terror is its suggestion that terrorism is monolithic. It is not. Terrorism is a method of warfare and organization utilized by disparate groups with wide-ranging and often conflicting goals. The war is not fought in one or even two theaters of operation, but globally. We cannot kill every last terrorist, though it would be gratifying, and even if we did we would still be faced with their sons and grandsons and great-grandsons, largely radicalized by the institutions that drove their fathers to take up arms. While unpopular to say, the War on Terror cannot be won in a conventional sense. While maintaining a strong national defense and an agile military, the final solution to terrorism is to force the nations that harbor and nurture terrorists to resolve their internal issues. Primarily, this means pressuring moderate Islamic countries to confront the radical elements within them. This will be even harder than Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to be. It could take generations. But it has to be done, or we guarantee that we’ll be playing terrorist “whack-a-mole” across the globe. In doing so we render ourselves unable to deal credibly with more monolithic threats, such as the reassertion of Russia or a nuclear Iran, unless we start flexing our nuclear muscle, which will cause a whole slew of new problems and exacerbate existing ones.

I don’t particularly want to see us invading any more countries, especially Iran (if you know anything about the topography of Iran and military tactics, you understand that invading and occupying that country would be virtually impossible). I want to see the United States publicly more active in developing international coalitions to pressure irrational actors, and privately more active in causing mysterious strokes, heart failures and plane crashes that remove hostile dictators. I want to see the United States keeping the fight against terrorism where it belongs, overseas, rather than within American borders. That means not listening to my phone conversations without a warrant, illegally detaining me or torturing me. I want to see us supporting foreign governments that are sustainable, democratic and reform-minded, rather than backing tin pot dictators one after another until their latest student massacre forces us to withdraw our support and become the face of evil to the revolutionaries that seize power. I want us to aggressively promote human rights, economic liberty and democracy around the globe, and a good start is to ensure that we are practicing them at home so that we can serve as a credible example.

ROLLING BACK THE BAILOUT

2009-01-16T15:08:00.009+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

This article raised my spirits this morning, though I admit that without seeing the details of their case I cannot judge their chances of success. It sounds like some conservatives with backbones (FreedomWorks Foundation, led by Dick Armey) will be challenging the constitutionality of the TARP by filing a lawsuit. With the Supreme Court’s current make-up, I am hopeful that rational minds will prevail and strike down the Bailout (in its current form, anyway) as unconstitutional. To me, apart from the staggeringly idiotic waste of money it represents, the TARP bailout has troubled me for its clear violation of the separation of powers, conferring unprecedented discretionary spending power to the executive branch with no Congressional oversight to date. Again, I am hopeful that this will kill the concept of the bailout in its current form as a federal institution, but $350 billion worth of damage is already done and who knows how much more of the second $350 billion will be spent before this lawsuit sees the light of day. And I’m sure that Congress will find a way to navigate through the Supreme Court’s ruling (whatever it may be) to resurrect the bailout in a new and “constitutional” form.

WHO'S THIS FOR?

2009-01-15T22:55:00.007+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

This is all well and good, electric cars are great, but I have to ask who they’re showing these off for, especially after the Big Three bailout. Is this for Congress’ benefit or ours? And do they really think they can sell them? That $109K electric car from Tesla they mentioned ain’t exactly gonna fly off the shelves. I find their optimistic claims of electric cars going mainstream in two to three years a bit unrealistic, but what do I know? I suppose when I start seeing plug-in, electric SUVs that cost the same as or better than those running on fossil fuels I'll believe it.

WORTH THE TROUBLE?

2009-01-13T22:55:00.004+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

As more and more documentation accrues showing a clear conflict of interest represented by Hillary Clinton’s nomination for Secretary of State, I continue to shake my head and ask, “is she worth the trouble?” Is there really something so special about Hillary Clinton that it’s worth compromising American foreign policy, or at the very least appearing to compromise American foreign policy, just to have her in the Cabinet? The coming Obama administration has been adamant about repairing America’s image around the globe and engaging in an aggressive diplomatic campaign to make more friends than enemies. That’s why the Clinton choice really has me scratching my head.

I know what some may be thinking: the Clinton supporters had to be made to feel welcome. But why? They largely voted for Obama anyway. The PUMA movement never materialized for McCain on Election Day. What recourse do they have now? Clinton will surely not challenge a sitting Democrat president for her Party’s nomination in 2012. Indeed, President-elect Obama could have made a strong statement by shutting out the Clintons altogether from his administration, both to make good on his promise for a “new politics” and to assert himself as the unquestioned leader of his Party. Such a move could have sent the Clintons tumbling into the “dustbin” of history with Jimmy Carter, anachronistic relics of a bygone era, no longer relevant.

But Obama didn’t do that. Instead, he’s chosen to make himself the butt of his own “McCain will serve Bush’s third term” quips by surrounding himself with former Clintonites and elevating Clinton herself to such a prestigious position in his government. I think it’s fair to say that Obama will serve out Bill Clinton’s third term, no? We shall see. But I once again have to assert that, if Obama seriously intended to deliver on his image of change in Washington and an end to “politics as usual,” he could have done better than Hillary Clinton (plus

baggage).

THE MANTLE OF PEACE

2009-01-13T20:51:00.003+02:00

BY LUSCUS

As the most recent episode of the recurring Gaza conflict escalates, the world is in an uproar against Israel and the civilian casualty rate. For the latter, this is rightly so. There is also an increasing fury with America's silence, and president-elect Obama's in particular. What the world can't remember, is that Obama now receives the same intelligence briefing as President Bush, something that can be vaguely summarized as such:

Hamas has 20,000-25,000 armed troops in Gaza, and an established tactic of firing rockets from schools, hospitals, and highly-concentrated civilian areas so that any targeted response results in a high civilian casualty count.

There is a good chance that Syria will come in from the cold in 2009. This has been a quiet rumor that is slowly getting louder. A peace agreement between Israel and Syria that would see the Golan Heights return to Damascus' control in exchange for the cessation of funding/arming Hamas militants would be the biggest step towards peace since the 1973 peace between Israel and Egypt.

Former Iranian President Khatami's political clout is growing, at the expense of current president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The president serves at the whim of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. If you don't remember, in 2003 President Khatami unilaterally offered to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program and reach an influence sharing agreement with the United States. This was declined, likely at the behest of Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. With oil prices remaining well below OPEC's desired $80 per barrel, Ahmedinejad will be unable to afford his generous demagogic grant/welfare programs. With any luck, he will be replaced.

This is not to excuse Israel for its sloppy execution of this engagement, costing far too many civilian lives than is reasonable or morally acceptable in pursuit of its goal. At minimum, they should take strides to provide for the medical treatment of women and children wounded in Gaza, perhaps by building a civilian hospital outside of the border. For president-elect Obama, a recommitment to a greater peace should be loud and unequivocal.

The biggest danger at present is that Israel fails to deliver the 'knockout blow' to Hamas, and a further radicalization of the group and territory escalates the conflict. President Bush's legacy was further tarnished by this happening against Hezbollah. Failure to achieve a strategic checkmate on Israel's part would make Obama's silence damning.

But there is hope. If Israel devastates Hamas' military capacity, trades the Golan Heights for peace with Syria, and oil prices change the political winds in Iran, then-president Obama could reap the windfall of success that eluded his two predecessors.

YOU'VE GOT THE WRONG CONSERVATIVE

2009-01-13T20:27:00.010+02:00

BY CINCINNATUS

I read this article by Froma Harrop on RealClearPolitics, and I have to ask: which conservatives is she talking about when she declares that we "contend that taxes must be raised"? She casually discards the option of cutting federal spending by assuming that conservatives agree the government should be responsible for stimulating the economy, something which we do not in fact agree on. She seems to back up this erroneous argument by saying that, because Republicans in Congress claimed to be conservatives and took the deficit to new heights in Washington, conservatism cannot legitimately claim to be the ideological home of fiscal responsibility anyway. Finally, she hems us in by saying that conservatives don't like debt (at least she got that one right) and so our only option is to raise taxes. Riiiiiiiight...

While I agree that if a reduction in federal spending does not occur then taxes will have to skyrocket (I'm talking MASSIVE increases, especially on corporations and the wealthy), this conservative is of the mind that we haven't even gotten our hands dirty on spending cuts yet, and, as I've said repeatedly (see here and here), the government is not going to spend us out of this recession. We've got plenty of jungle yet to hack away at before we even talk tax increases.