By Thomas E. Brewton
Liberals propose to follow the same game plan that gave us stagflation in the 1970s.
As success with the military surge in Iraq increasingly belies their claim that the war is already irretrievably lost, liberals have changed the subject from Iraq to the economy and the rising possibility of a recession. Liberal Republicans and Democrats, as usual, prescribe Federal deficit spending and higher taxes on "the rich."
That is the doctrine of Keynesian economics, which advocates consumer spending as the exclusive highway to full employment and prosperity. According to Keynes, consumer and business savings must be offset by massively increased Federal spending. What the money is spent for doesn’t matter; just flood the market with money created by bookkeeping entries at the Federal Reserve banks.
Keynesian economics failed to end the Depression. Its repetition, as we saw in the bitter experience of Great Society stagflation in the 1970s, discouraged investment in projects of long term value and led to speculations that promised high rates of return in the short-run.
For example, during the 1970s stagflation, is was only marginally profitable to build rental apartments, because the rate of return on those investments was far below the inflation rate. What occurred, instead, was an unprecedented boom in hotel construction, because room rates could be increased every day. By 1980, there was a shortage of rental apartments and an oversupply of hotels.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Economics, Taxes at 10:52 PM EST
No Comments »
By Warner Todd Huston
The west’s current battle with radical Islam has revealed the worst in both the west and the world of Islam. Obviously from Islam we have seen the intolerance, hatred, oppression and evil in its nature. But, from the west we have seen revealed the hollowness of its soul and a complete lack of self-regard as so many western nations allow the evil of Islam to attack them from within as well as from without. The west has lost its spine to stand up for its own principles, in fact has thrown away all pretext that it even has principles worth preserving.
Ben Franklin is reported to have said that for the American people the Founders had created a Republic but he added the caution "if you can keep it." By that he meant, of course, that it was up to future Americans to maintain the system grounded upon the first principles the Founders bequeathed to us. The same can be said of any society for if a society throws away or strays too far from its beginnings it becomes a materially different entity. Now sometimes it’s a good thing when a society strays from its genesis, to be sure. Leaving behind certain prejudices, rectifying the suppression of ideas or ending the oppression of minorities is the mark of a maturing, benevolent society. But, too much change can also be a bad thing. And change merely for changes sake is not a legitimate goal.
This dual reliance on conserving tradition while moving forward to liberalize society is familiar ground for the west in general and the United States in particular. The Founders clearly believed that both liberalization and conservatism could be enshrined in a modern state. After all, the whole thrust of the Founders’ ideology was that they were combining a preservation of the best of English tradition with the liberalization of government by the consent of the people and the ideals of religious liberty.
To the American Founders, these were principles well worth fighting for.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Cartoon Jihad, Islam at 10:52 PM EST
No Comments »
By Nancy Salvato
While a great number of people do not see the value in the Electoral College (And "W" Takes the Series), it is possible an even greater number of people don’t fully comprehend how each political party selects their candidate for president. During the Iowa Caucus, after I heard several people draw a blank when asked to explain how a Caucus works, I decided it might be time to put together a primer on the nominating process. The Republican and Democratic political parties "officially nominate their candidate for President at their respective national conventions, usually held the summer before the election." In order to win the nomination, a Democrat must win 2,025 delegates out of 4,049 possible and a Republican must win 1,191 delegates out of 2,381 possible. Leading up to the national conventions, there are a series of presidential caucuses and primary elections which take place across the nation. Traditionally, this begins with the Iowa caucus, held in early January of the presidential election year, and is quickly followed by the New Hampshire primary."Most [Emphasis mine] of the delegates in each party are awarded based upon election results in any given state."
"Depending on state law and state party rules, when voters cast ballots for a candidate in a presidential caucus or primary, they may be actually voting to award delegates bound to vote for a candidate at the state or national convention or may simply be expressing an opinion that the state party is not bound to follow in selecting delegates to the national convention." [Emphasis mine]
Furthermore, "Not all of the delegates in either party are selected by voters in primaries or caucuses. There are quite a few delegates that automatically go to each convention. They might be a member of Congress, a governor, or even a party official. They get automatic berths to the convention, and can vote for whomever they choose. Already, some of those automatic delegates have pledged to the candidate they support. But, they can also change their minds at any point for any reason."
The format of the presidential caucuses and primary elections varies between the states.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Presidential Race at 11:58 PM EST
No Comments »
By Jim Kouri National Security
To address concerns about unemployed or underemployed Soviet-era weapons scientists in Russia and other former Soviet Bloc nations, the US Department of Energy established the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention or IPP program in 1994. The general idea was to engage former Soviet weapons scientists in nonmilitary work in the short term and create private sector jobs for these scientists in the long term.
To address this issue, the US Congress requested that analysts from the Government Accountability Office analyze DOE policies, plans, and budgets. Analysts also interviewed key program officials and representatives from 22 Russian and Ukrainian institutes.
According to the GAO’s initial report, the DOE has overstated accomplishments for the 2 critical measures it uses to assess the IPP program’s progress and performance — the number of scientists receiving DOE support and the number of long-term, private sector jobs created.
First, although DOE claims to have engaged over 16,770 scientists in Russia and other countries, this total includes both scientists with and without weapons-related experience.
The GAO’s analysis of 97 IPP projects involving about 6,450 scientists showed that more than half did not claim to possess any weapons-related experience. In addition, officials from 10 Russian and Ukrainian institutes told GAO analysts that the IPP program helps them attract, recruit, and retain younger scientists who might otherwise emigrate to the United States or other western countries and contributes to the continued operation of their facilities.
This is contrary to the original intent of the program, which was to reduce the proliferation risk posed by Soviet-era weapons scientists.
Second, although DOE asserts that the IPP program helped create 2,790 long-term, private sector jobs for former weapons scientists, the credibility of this number is uncertain because DOE relies on "good-faith" reporting from US industry partners and foreign institutes on the number of jobs created and does not independently verify the number of jobs reported to have been created.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as National Security at 11:57 PM EST
No Comments »
By Ken Marrero
With Poll numbers showing the Democrat led Congress is enjoying the worst approval numbers since I don’t know when, the Democrat’s strategy to combat this perception in the minds of voters would seem to be - more of the same behavior that earned them abysmal ratings originally.
The widely trumpeted mandate for change the Left claims American voters overwhelmingly handed them in November 2006 was rooted, in part, in Democrat charges the then GOP controlled Congress was out of touch with the American people. Evidence of the GOP’s disconnectedness was found in polling numbers that showed Congress with 35%-45% approval numbers leading up to the elections. As the election approached, those numbers began dropping as the the perception Republicans were poorly serving the interests of the nation gained traction. At election time, 2006, approval for the GOP Congress was at 25%-35%.
The nation "threw the bums out" and polls immediately evidenced the optimism Democrats like to point back to with approval numbers rising to the 35%-45% levels earlier enjoyed by the GOP. However, as Democrats failed to keep their promises on the War; wallowing in meaningless non-binding resolutions and neglecting their duties to debate, craft and pass a budget, the worm turned. Gone were the glories of 40%+ approval. By May of 2007, Democrats watched the 30s evaporate and hit bottom, sluggishly floundering in the 20%-25% range with occasional dips into the high teens! The worst was July, 2007 where Reid, Pelosi and company hit record setting lows at 14% and then 11% barely escaping a nightmare plunge into single digits!
You would think such messages would be taken seriously by Democrats. They certainly took notice when they perceived GOP numbers were down and made sure we all noticed, too. But you’d be wrong. After 8 months of what is arguably the worst ever performance for a Congress, Democrats continue to bluster and posture in the same ways that first earned them the disrespect of voters.
Two stories illustrate the inexplicable behavior of the Party that claims to be leading our nation. CQ Today reports Harry Reid is talking tough to get his party’s agenda addressed.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Presidential Race at 2:11 AM EST
No Comments »
By Alan Caruba
News of a January 31 “teach-in” on more than 1,000 college campuses nationwide strikes me of just one more example of the growing desperation of the environmental movement that has bet its credibility and influence on global warming.
Mark your calendar for any news about a March 2-4 conference in New York that is expected to draw between 400 and 500 global warming skeptics, i.e., scientists, economists, and policy experts. I suspect that print and broadcast journalists will do their best to ignore this event in what is arguably the media capitol of the nation, if not the world.
Organized by the Heartland Institute and co-sponsored by the International Climate Science Coalition, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and the Science & Environmental Policy Project, it should put to rest the very core of the “teach-in”, the notion that there is a consensus among the world’s scientists that global warming is happening or about to happen.
In one way, even the Greens are right. There is global warming and the reason is that it is a perfectly natural phenomenon based entirely on the activity of the Sun. No one disputes that the Earth has warmed about one degree Fahrenheit since the end of the last mini-ice age around 1850. And, as Martha Stewart would say, that’s a good thing.
What is not happening is a huge warming that is melting all the ice at the North and South Poles, causing hurricanes, or any of the several hundred other things attributed to global warming. It is definitely not something that human activity is causing or can “control” in any fashion. Try controlling the Sun, the oceans, clouds, volcanoes, et cetera!
As for the dreaded carbon dioxide, it represents 0.038% of the earth's atmosphere.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Global Warming at 1:10 AM EST
No Comments »
By Robert E. Meyer
Numerous skeptics and modern historians raise an interesting question that has been hotly disputed in recent years; whether or not America was founded as a "Christian Nation."
Generally, secular humanists have tried to refute this claim by contending that certain key Founders believed merely in a deistic God which didn't intervene in human affairs.
They would be on safer ground if they had instead said that there were strains of religious unorthodoxy in the thinking of certain key Framers. The problem is that when those who claim the Founders were deists, define deism, they can't make that definition fit the concept of God expressed by the Framers themselves. It is clear that there was a solid belief in a God who actively manages and intervenes in human affairs.
Thomas Jefferson reflecting of the injustice of slavery stated…
"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever."
This indicates a God who judges the deeds of humanity.
Benjamin Franklin, considered one of the least religious Founders, made this observation during the constitutional convention…
"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor… Have we now forgotten this powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs his affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, it is probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
Notice here that as Franklin approached the end of his life he found convincing proof that God was actively involved in human interventions.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as General Commentary, US History at 11:57 PM EST
No Comments »
By Thomas Lindaman
January 3rd came and went…and the political world didn’t end! Oh, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both dropped out of contention for the Democrats after the Iowa Caucuses, but they weren’t exactly lighting up the Democrat side that much. Besides, in Biden’s case, I think he was just copying Dodd’s strategy.
Yet, to hear some people out there, the Iowa Caucuses are some sort of monstrosity that threatens the fabric of our democracy. (Of course, if we had a democracy, we might have a reason to be worried.) People from California to Florida, New York to Los Angeles, have questioned why Iowa gets to go first in the nation and have had some not-so-nice things to say about the Hawkeye State in the process. Californians have even said that they should go first in the nation because of their size and, thus, political significance. Since Californians are the ones complaining the most about the Iowa Caucuses, the majority of this column will address their complaints about them.
One of the major complaints from politically minded Californians is that Iowa doesn’t represent the racial diversity of the nation. To them, Iowa is predominantly white, culturally homogeneous, and out of touch with the rest of the country. That’s as may be, but those same descriptors could be used to talk about another part of the country, one that’s equally white, homogeneous, and out of touch.
That’s right. I’m talking about Beverly Hills.
Furthermore, since when is a state’s caucus or primary required to reflect the racial and cultural diversity of the country? Race and culture play some role, but the larger role will be played by political ideology. For example, right around Berkeley, I’m pretty sure there’s a greater than average concentration of white kids who think socialism is the best socio-economic system out there (so long as Mommy and Daddy keep sending the tuition checks). Applying California’s exclusionary mindset in this case, the entire city of Berkeley, California, could be discounted from the California primaries because it doesn’t reflect the ideological leanings of this country. Then again, I’m thinking the California Republican Party wouldn’t have any complaints about that.
Another common complaint is that it’s not fair that a small state like Iowa has so much power over the process because many campaigns shut down if they don’t fare well in Iowa. The argument here is that Californians go so late in the primary season that they don’t get the same choices Iowans get, so in order to be fair in their minds, they should go first so Californians would have a wider field from which to choose. With this election, though, I’m thinking it’s like choosing between a dog poop sandwich and a bear poop sandwich.
The main argument against this notion is campaign cash. Say Hillary Clinton wants to run a 30-second television spot in Sacramento, the capitol of California. It’s going to cost more to run the ad in Sacramento than it will in Des Moines, the capitol of Iowa, because Sacramento is so much bigger. Same thing with radio and print ads and mass mailings. In short, if California were to go first, it would cost campaigns more to accomplish the necessary tasks to run for President. Some smaller, lesser-funded campaigns would either skip California altogether or fold up shop because they couldn’t spend the money to be competitive, which means…Californians would pretty much get the same choices than if those candidates dropped out after the Iowa Caucuses.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Presidential Race at 11:49 AM EST
No Comments »
By Christopher Adamo
Perhaps it is overly limiting to discuss the present state of our nation, and thus its prospects for the future, without broadening the topic to include all of Western civilization. Nevertheless, for at least the past century as well as a goodly portion of the century before that, America provided the primary defining force of Western culture. So it is no overstatement to assert that life in the free world will live or die based on the direction America takes in the upcoming years.
Corrosive forces are hard at work to ensure that the former power with which this nation moved the rest of the world is diluted and eventually neutralized. Worst of all, many who express outward belief in the worthiness of the American experiment are nonetheless helping to eradicate its founding philosophies, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they too will fall if it falls.
It is as if they think they can selectively remove the sometimes inconvenient building blocks of the American foundation without ever weakening the overall integrity of that foundation. And if they believe thus, they believe what is not and will never be.
The present, absurd nature of the presidential race, daily exhibiting less and less substance while any real consideration of the issues is increasingly being replaced by a media circus reminiscent of American idol (but possessing far less genuine talent), did not evolve overnight. Rather it has resulted from an ongoing effort of the mainstream media to shift the focus from a thoughtful consideration of weighty issues (which would leave the Democrats at a disadvantage) to ever more frivolous assessments of prospective candidates.
In the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy debate, the first such event to be broadcast on television, public opinions were swayed by Nixon’s appearance of discomfort in front of the cameras, "darkness" of facial features, and five o’clock shadow. Nixon’s real qualifications notwithstanding, these were extremely weak reasons to support or oppose a particular candidate.
In the same vein, Hillary’s crying episode last week (for those able to recognize its transparency) was no more about bolstering America’s standing in the world than it was a genuine outpouring of emotion. Rather, it was only a matter of jumping through whatever hoops was necessary to claim a dubious victory in the New Hampshire primary. In the process, America’s greatness was lowered a notch in the eyes of the world. And more of the same is likely to follow.
Furthermore, to listen to the catcalling that has erupted between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama since then, one can only fear for the future of the country if either assumes the reins of power by offering such morally and intellectually vacant ideas. But sadly, they are not alone.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Biased Media, Presidential Race at 7:31 AM EST
No Comments »
By Daniel Clark
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has decided to postpone the construction of an American missile defense base in his country, a move that news reports have attributed to his being less pro-American than his predecessor, Jaroslaw Kaczynski. Tusk’s reason for this change in policy, however, does not indicate an erosion of the Poles’ loyalty to their American allies. Rather, it is based on their concerns about America’s wavering dedication to its own missile defense project.
Tusk wants to delay the deployment of the missile shield until after this year’s U.S. presidential election, and it’s hard to argue with his judgment. Everybody knows that if the Democrats win the presidency, they will mothball our missile defense plan, just as Bill Clinton did for the entire eight years of his administration. Russia, the powerful and cantankerous neighbor to Poland’s east, has protested the U.S. missile shield from the outset. If Tusk proceeds with the project, only to see it abandoned by our next president, he’ll have antagonized the Kremlin for no good reason.
It’s not as if the Poles would have a hard time believing that the Democrats would hang them out to dry. That’s because Poland has been among our most trusted allies in Iraq – you know, the ones that John Kerry slandered as "the coalition of the bribed and coerced." Those allies can’t help but be leery of Kerry’s party, members of which have threatened to cut off funding for the war, demanded a "redeployment" to Okinawa, and refused to accept the delivery of good news from General Petraeus.
With the prospect of a Democrat victory in November, Poland risks angering not only Russia, but also a newly elected, Democrat-controlled government here in the U.S.
The real story out of Poland, then, is that the Democrats have succeeded in deterring an ally from helping the United States. This is important not only insofar as their obstruction of our missile defenses are concerned, but also in serving as a parallel to their effect on another important American ally – the people of Iraq.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by Walt as Europe Political Issues, Presidential Race, U.S Foreign Policy at 7:31 AM EST
No Comments »
