August 30, 2008
Bush 43: History's First Review
Between convention fever and a certain candidate's brilliant choice of a capitalist running dog running mate, I don't want to let this slip away.
Yale Professor John Lewis Gaddis scored a Samizdata Quote of the Day. When I followed the link, I felt his entire article to be worthy of a full read.
Gaddis talks about history's rehabilitating Presidential reputations even when they leave office in unpopularity. I've remained certain that President Bush is due for some better press in the history books than he got in the NY Times. And Gaddis may be a step toward the rehabilitation.
Presidential revisionism tends to begin with small surprises. How, for instance, could a Missouri politician like Truman who never went to college get along so well with a Yale-educated dandy like Acheson? How could Eisenhower, who spoke so poorly, write so well? How could Reagan, the prototypical hawk, want to abolish nuclear weapons? Answering such questions caused historians to challenge conventional wisdom about these Presidents, revealing the extent to which stereotypes had misled their contemporaries.So what might shift contemporary impressions of President Bush? I can only speak for myself here, but something I did not expect was the discovery that he reads more history and talks with more historians than any of his predecessors since at least John F. Kennedy. The President has surprised me more than once with comments on my own books soon after they’ve appeared, and I’m hardly the only historian who has had this experience. I’ve found myself improvising excuses to him, in Oval Office seminars, as to why I hadn’t read the latest book on Lincoln, or on—as Bush refers to him—the “first George W.” I’ve even assigned books to Yale students on his recommendation, with excellent results.
Excuse me? President Bush recommending books to a Yale History Professor? Don't let that one get out, man, you'll ruin his reputation.
The whole (magazine-length) article is superb. Does anybody recognize this magazine? Is it British? It looks pretty good. (UPDATE: No, not UK based. The masthead lists Francis Fukuyama, Walter Russell Mead & Josef Joffe and an eclectic list of contributors.)
August 10, 2008
It's Good to be the President...
He said he was going to Beijing to support the athletes:
AP Photo, hat-tip: Insty
Hoo-rah, time for some Olympics blogging!
I've been very proud every time I've seen the Prez serving as "fan in chief" at the Beijing Olympics. I completely disagree with Byron York (Fox News Sunday, 8/10/08) and others who suggest Bush would have made a stronger statement against Chinese totalitarianism by staying home.
Brother JK and I have debated a few times whether the China glass is half full or half empty. I think we agree though that it becomes fuller when we engage with them than if we don't.
And how about W's reacton when the USA national anthem was bungled during the first of many gold medal ceremonies for Michael Phelps? It's cut short (ironically) in this YouTube video but you can see that he laughed it off, although when I saw it live he seemed to be thinking "what's so hard about playing a recorded audio track from beginning to end? (I thought the same thing but I wasn't laughing.) Not only was it cut short but the first two lines were repeated, perhaps to make up for leaving off "Oh say can you..." when it first began!
I saw much of the opening ceremony on Friday and agree that it was spectacular. But when something as simple as this is botched... what a shame.
Posted by: johngalt at August 10, 2008 5:27 PMThe Refugee is having trouble believing it was an accident that they cut the recording just as it came to the phrase, "O'er the land of the free..." If it was an accident, then it was one of Freudian proportions.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at August 11, 2008 3:54 PMJune 16, 2008
Not the Only One Who Will Miss This Guy
I had wanted to link to this post last week. It seems we may be down to single digits (not percent -- actually fewer than ten people) who still have a fondness for our 43rd President. But I count myself in that number -- and Terri does too (at least last Thursday, they're dropping like flies...)
Natan Sharansky, the patron saint of this blog, puts the President's farewell European tour in historical perspective:
But while Mr. Bush is widely seen by Europeans as a religious cowboy with a Manichean view on the world, Europe's growing rift with America predates the current occupant of the White House. When a French foreign minister, Hubert Védrine, declared that his country "cannot accept a politically unipolar world, nor a culturally uniform world, nor the unilateralism of a single hyper power," President Clinton was in the seventh year of his presidency and Mr. Bush was still governor of Texas.
The title of the guest editorial is "Democracies Can't Compromise on Core Values." Whoever wins in November, I suspect 1600 Pennsylvania will be populated by someone far more likely than President Bush to compromise on core democratic values.
March 14, 2008
Say It Ain't So!
"Jimmy P" previews a bit of Larry Kudlow's interview with President Bush tonight, and it is not good news:
But just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians during financial crises, at least not if it's their dough at stake. And while there are plenty of economists out there who are advocating a hands-off approach to the credit crisis and housing implosion—echoing Andrew Mellon's infamous advocacy of "liquidate...liquidate...liquidate"—they will be disappointed. Uncle Sam will probably continue to intervene during this financial turmoil.
[...]
Indeed, President Bush has almost gone out of his way not to rule out a bailout. Nor did he do so in a speech to the Economic Club of New York this morning. And in an interview on CNBC today with Lawrence Kudlow, the president basically said that in extraordinary situations, extraordinary action is required.
And --as Bluto said, "This calls for a pointless gesture!"
I easily scored a new loan for my new Condo the other day. I have approval but have not locked the rate or selected the exact vehicle. I am thinking I should get a 2-year ARM and wait for our new Democratic overlords to pay it (Sorry for the density of pop culture references, I'm pretty upset.)
I look forward to watching the interview (5 PM EST on CNBC). I doubt Larry will let that go easily.
Uh, ESPECIALLY when it's my dough at stake, that's when I want the government to stay the f--- out of things.
Economic crises are when you can tell who are REAL libertarians, and who are closet interventionists.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 15, 2008 1:15 PMA person who has the earth beneath his feet turned to quicksand by meddlesome "soil stabilization experts" and then refuses a rope from those same experts is not called a libertarian; he's called an idealistic pauper.
If everyone else is playing with Monopoly Money too then you have no choice but to maximize your pile right along with them. (And keep your pantry well stocked.)
Posted by: johngalt at March 15, 2008 3:06 PMFebruary 19, 2008
We're Gonna Miss This Guy
William McGurn has a guest editorial in the WSJ today, recounting his experience on both sides of the Press Corps vs. White House contretemps. McGurn says in three years "You see who's a straight shooter, and who's full of snark. You see who's smart, and whose outrageous behavior would have made its way to Drudge had it involved White House staffers instead of White House correspondents." He chooses three things where President Bush was right and persevered.
Of course, if you are one of those experts who reassured us that a "well managed defeat" in Iraq was the way for America to go, you don't like hearing the president use plain words like "win" and "victory." Then again, you're not the audience George W. Bush worries about. During one of my first meetings in the Oval Office, the president told me and my fellow speechwriters that we must always be mindful of how his words would sound to the enemy -- and how they would sound to the young Marine risking his life against that enemy in some dusty town in Afghanistan or Iraq.President Bush hasn't always been right. But he's been right on the things that matter most, and he's been willing to take the heat. I, for one, admire him for it.
I have had my differences with W over the years (fewer than most around here) but think we will all recognize, as Jay Nordlinger said, we are going to miss this guy.
December 19, 2007
A Tale of Two Tales on the Omnibus Spending Bill
First, as is my custom, I read the Wall Street Journal. The Editorial page offers "One Budget Cheer" for the President. (free link)
As we at the Journal debated Washington's latest spending deal yesterday, one of our tribe noted that it is the best budget of the Bush Presidency. To which someone else quipped that that was "the soft bigotry of low expectations."
They enumerate the good, bad and ugly
The good news is that Democrats conceded to Mr. Bush's spending cap of $933 billion in domestic discretionary spending for 2008--or $22 billion less than Democrats proposed in their spring budget resolution. Over five years, that $22 billion will save about $205 billion because it won't become part of the annual "baseline" that the pols use as a starting point for next year's automatic budget increases. This is a modest but real victory.[...]Gone are limits on union disclosure reports. Gone, too, is an expansion of Davis-Bacon demands to pay prevailing union wages even on non-union work sites[...]
Oh, and Congress is also funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the tune of $70 billion--something Democratic leaders had vowed not to do.
And yet this is hardly a lean or mean budget. When combined with the Defense spending bill that has already been signed, Congress will still exceed Mr. Bush's $933 billion "top-line" thanks to about $11 billion in budget gimmicks and "emergency" spending.
And pork, pork, pork.
I was planning to post this with a contrarian pragmatist commentary, even though I got "bit in the ass" a couple of days ago. We have two houses of Democrats, the President needs to fund the war, I figured this as a pretty good day's work. But I'm still a little sore form that bite.
Don Luskin gives me cover. He calls it Sweet Victory and says that the good guys are going to win.
Following repeated veto threats, the compromise now -- approved 76-17 by the Senate -- cuts $17.5 billion from prior House-passed bills or about 80% of what Democrats once hoped to add to the president's top line.
And offers "frosting on the cake:"
The Democrats’ yearlong fight to boost federal spending on children’s health insurance ended with a whimper Tuesday.After coming up short in their efforts to enact a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) — enduring two presidential vetoes along the way — congressional Democrats signed off on Republican demands to extend the program until 2009.
Ten points for a T.S. Eliot allusion, and 20 for the Congressional GOP. The SCHIP defeat is important in a way that cutting pork is not. I'd love a lean budget, I'd love last year's levels, I'd love to have Mitt Romney's hair.
The war is important. The SCHIP battle was important. The Democrats control both houses. Most Republicans are completely worthless. Factor all this in, and count me in the victory party with Mr. Luskin.
UPDATE: Make that Three Americas. The Club for Growth won't go as far as the WSJ. They list the no votes with congrats.
December 6, 2007
a hearty, quarter cheer for Sec. Paulson
The lead editorial (paid link) in the WSJ today has a funny, self deprecating lede:
The next time we suggest that the government give advice to the private sector, tie us down until the fever passes. A couple months ago, we endorsed the idea of mortgage service companies voluntarily negotiating with subprime borrowers and investors to avoid a wave of defaults next year. Now come the politicians to wrap their arms around the idea, and maybe give the U.S. a reputation for forcibly rewriting financial contracts. Don't cry for us, Argentina?
They then get a little more serious, and question just how "voluntary" a plan is when it is negotiated by the US Treasury Department.
We wonder what these parties really think. Offering free advice is one thing. But when the feds sit down as a negotiating partner, the line between moral suasion and coercion starts to blur. Companies begin to think they're hearing an offer they can't refuse. So perhaps we should call it the Not Paulson bailout.
This plan seems to have it all: moral hazard, tax subsidies (States can issue tax free bonds to facilitate refinancing), and plenty of blood in the water to attract the tort bar:
The U.S. economic and legal systems are built on the sanctity of contract, and even the hint that government is compelling investors who now own these mortgages (the banks having sold them as bundled securities) to take less money puts the U.S. on a very dangerous road. At a minimum, it will raise the future risk premium that investors will demand for investing in U.S. real estate, which means it will be costlier to get a mortgage in the future.
What's so good about this plan? The Democratic House has one that is much worse, as does Senator Clinton:
Many in the Bush Administration and mortgage industry privately agree that this is dubious policy, but they plead that it's better than the alternatives being offered on Capitol Hill. These include "antipredatory lending" laws and new bankruptcy provisions that are punitive and would delay any recovery in the mortgage market. Right on time, Hillary Clinton weighed in with the truly awful idea of freezing subprime mortgage rates for five years -- presumably, through the end of her re-election campaign in 2012. She'd combine price controls and contract repudiation -- an Argentina double.
Doing nothing is proudly suggested by my wingnut friends at the WSJ Ed Page, but everybody knows it is not an option. In a choice between the lame "Not Paulson Bailout" and a new SarbOx for lenders, it's easy to choose sides:
go president bush, go secretary paulson. yaay.
December 1, 2007
Dana!
Terri at I Think ^(Link) Therefore I Err shares my appreciation for press secratery Dana Perino, bringing us this exchange with Helen Thomas:
Q Why should we depend on him?MS. PERINO: Because he is the commander on the ground, Helen. He’s the one who is making sure that the situation is moving —
Q You mean how many more people we kill?
MS. PERINO: Helen, I find it really unfortunate that you use your front row position, bestowed upon you by your colleagues, to make such statements. This is a — it is an honor and a privilege to be in the briefing room, and to suggest that we, at the United States, are killing innocent people is just absurd and very offensive.
Q Do you know how many we have since the start of this war?
MS. PERINO: How many — we are going after the enemy, Helen. To the extent that any innocent Iraqis have been killed, we have expressed regret for it.
Q Oh, regret. It doesn’t bring back a life.
MS. PERINO: Helen, we are in a war zone, and our military works extremely hard to make sure that everyone has the opportunity for liberty and freedom and democracy, and that is exactly what they are doing.
I’m going to move on.
Someday, won't even the press corps become embarassed with Ms. Thomas?
November 28, 2007
Kind Words for a Bush Appointee
Gregory Mankiw says choosing Keith Hennessey to replace Al Hubbard as the head of the National Economic Council is "an excellent choice."
September 2, 2007
Later, Tony!
Can we take up a collection and give this guy a million dollars to stick around through the end of the term?
Duane R. Patterson, on Hugh Hewitt’s blog, shares this:
It's a little long and will cause severe eye-rolling among some ThreeSourcers. I can find places to separate from the President on polity or ideas, but I take Snow's assessment at face value.
August 17, 2007
Karl Rove
Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson pens a nice piece about "the architect."
But in several years as a colleague, I found Rove to be the most unusual political operative I have ever known; so exceptional he doesn't belong in the category. His most passionate, obsessive love -- after his wife -- is American history. He visits its shrines and collects its scraps -- carefully archived pictures of President William McKinley's funeral, original ballots from the 1860 election. And from American history Rove knows: Events are not moved primarily by techniques; they are moved by ideas.Rove's main influence on the Republican Party has not been a series of tactical innovations but a series of strategic arguments. In this way, Rove is the opposite of a cynical political operator. He is not only a partisan for George W. Bush but the most serious, tireless advocate of Bushism.
August 9, 2007
Lame Duck This!
Please oh please oh please let this bylined story in the WaPo be true.
President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.
That would be a good fight to spend the balance of his tenure upon. It's a good story, covering Bush's tough stance on letting his signature tax cuts expire, and the fight over whether a Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bailout is the best solution for the "subprime-lending-crisis." Senator Schumer and Congressman Frank, mirabile non dictu, think that's a good idea.
Thankfully, for a year and a half, we have the right person in the White House.
July 11, 2007
Defecit Narrows
WASHINGTON -- The White House's deficit forecast for the current fiscal year has narrowed to $205 billion, an administration official said Wednesday.The number is to be released later Wednesday, along with the White House's mid-session review, an update of its budget outlook. At $205 billion, the budget gap would be below the Office of Management and Budget's earlier forecast of $244 billion and last year's $248 billion deficit. The current fiscal year ends on Sept. 30.
The budget revision isn't a surprise. The deficit forecast is typically revised downward, and departing budget director Rob Portman told reporters last month that the fiscal 2007 deficit would be closer to $200 billion than the administration's earlier estimate, which was issued in February.
Mr. Portman is leaving Washington to spend more time with his family in Ohio. Former Rep. Jim Nussle (R., Iowa) has been nominated to succeed Mr. Portman.
There was some chatter on Kudlow the other day that Rep Nussle may be able to communicate the success of the Bush tax cuts better than Mr. Portman. I was sorry he was stolen from TeamRudy2088! but wish him success.
Note the Democrats' claim that it's just normal economic growth -- as if the tax cuts had nothing to do with encouraging the growth in the first place.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 11, 2007 5:07 PMSilly, the tax cuts caused the deficit -- don't you watch the news?
Posted by: jk at July 11, 2007 7:59 PMjk,..define "news." Katie Couric's floundering at SeeBS, or Fox?
;-)
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at July 12, 2007 10:01 AMKatie thinks that the tax cuts caused the deficit; Fox thinks that
*** NEWS ALERT ***
Body of a naked, attractive white woman is found in Red State. We now cut to Geraldo at the East Bejeesus Sheriff's office. Geraldo?
*** NEWS ALERT ***
July 9, 2007
Part D Medicare Open Thread
My ruthless SQL script closes comments on all entries older than seven days. This is about the time they roll off the front page. If anybody wants that policy amended, I'm all ears.
A running thread about President Bush, the "ownership society," and political pragmatism has spanned a few entries and inspired thoughtful comments from Perry Eidlebus (Eidelblog) and Terri (I think (^link) therefore I err). Perry suggests that he is not done, and I'm always game. Consider this an invitation to seven more days.
I'll briefly recap my position. President Bush's "ownership society" initiatives are disconcerting to small government types (among whom I normally number myself). They do NOT reduce the size, cost or influence of the Federal government. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) greatly expands Federal influence in education, contravening the spirit and likely the letter of the Ninth Amendment. Medicare Part D (Prescription drug benefit) was a huge, new entitlement and future liability. The private Social Security accounts did not proceed too far through legislative process, but would likely have been larded up with additional benefits to secure passage.
I contend that all of these had -- as a redeeming factor -- a "seed crystal" of a market mechanism: NCLB called for testing of schools and vouchers to help those in the worst schools escape. Part D did not set up the government as the purchaser and payer for drugs, but required participants to select a private insurer through whom prescriptions would be purchased.
You hear many tepid qualifiers in my non-fulsome defense. It scares me to expand government and the President likely gave up too much on all of them. But, in the absence of these programs, there would have been calls for less market-friendly solutions to the same problems. as we hear in the Democratic debates.
Fundamentally, I remind those who abhor these compromises that we're on the same side. I'm a bad warrior because I see that we do not have the political strength to prevail. I remain happy to get pieces of what I want in bad, ugly packages.
Let the games begin!
Perry:
[D]id you close comments in that other thread from late June? We're not done talking about Part D, and I'm not done with Terri. I genuinely am a nice guy, but I have this tendency to be merciless. Or we could continue things on my blog, but if Terri doesn't join in, it wouldn't be as fun for me.By the way, Terri, I get plenty of fresh air myself. My neighbors can spot me wearing a Rocky IV "I must break you" T-shirt when I go out for a couple of miles. But all the natural surroundings in the world won't do you a damn bit of good when you don't realize that you're advocating a lifestyle by which some people live at the expense of others.
"My world view include a world that was not created for you individually."
There's another of your problems. It's always about your view, about you and other redistributors imposing *your* view on others, against their will. You never consider that a single person and his household merely want to be left alone. They don't want to harm others, they don't want to coerce tax dollars from anyone else, and they ask only that others do the same.
"And one that has shown that many individuals do not treat it with the respect it merits."
Which means what? Are you saying people don't treat the world with the respect it merits? That's your opinion.
"Keeping your $ in your wallet to a certain extent is the better system. However this country is better than others because it's also tempered with other bits."
You said "to a certain extent." What's the number, then?
Actually, this country is better despite those other bits. This country has prospered because of a great deal of relative freedom, despite having an absurdly high corporate income tax (now the highest in the world), largely on the entrepreneurial and innovative strength of its people. Also, our land hasn't been repeatedly torn up by wars, unlike much of Europe.
"(I know of no successful "Libertarian" country. Our founding fathers knew that changes would need to be made along the way and provided for those.)"
In fact, this country originally was very libertarian, if you bother to read what the Constitution set up, and how land and taxes worked. It didn't last long. Learn your history.
"The morality of taking from you comes from what you have taken from me. Your well uses water that is coming from a source that is "owned" by all of us. The more you use, the less I have."
So your argument is that because I'm taking water from everyone else, that justifies you and everyone else using government to seize half of my earnings. That's some damn expensive water.
The water comes from underground, which ultimately comes from the reservoirs nearby. There's more than enough water for everybody, so much so that the reservoirs help feed New York City. Installing and maintaining a pipe system is minimal, and hardly worthy of stealing half of each of my paychecks, do you not agree?
If anything, New York City residents should be paying me and my neighbors for taking our water. As it stands, I pay a 2% income tax to NYC, though I don't live there and don't consume any city services I don't already pay for.
"You house was built on land that was originally paid for in tax dollars (even if via the military)."
You forget that my landlord had to buy the land to have the house built. Thus he paid the previous owner, who in turn paid the previous owner, and so on, until ultimately it was a single person who settled on land that nobody claimed. At the time, whatever land you cleared and built a house on became yours. Nobody paid any taxes; it was never asked.
In my part of Westchester, New York, it did not require the military to secure it. The only military involvement in my area may have been during the Revolutionary War. This area has been settled for 250 years or so. However, that wasn't even government protecting the rights of the people. It was people revolting against government, and you forget that one of the colonists' grievances was that the Crown prevented them from settling west.
"Your business thrives because laws are in place that help the people who are keeping it thriving to trust it."
Clearly you've never had more than a minor function in helping a business run. I've helped manage one, a retail shop. A good business needs no help whatsoever from government, not even laws, to "help" the business, or "help" its customers "trust" it. A business license does not make a shop owner trustworthy, or even fire safety regulations. If I don't think a building is safe, I simply won't go inside. The free market solution is that a store owner can hire a trusted person, perhaps a retired fire marshall, who will certify the building as safe according to his standards. People will want to go to that building more than a dilapidated firetrap.
You make a lot of general statements there but have no substance, no details by which to justify them. Exactly how does a government, then, keep a business "trusted" through laws?
"I have been known on more than a few occasions to send a few hundred dollars anonymously to startup local businesses who are worthwhile and going through that scary start up phase. When was the last time you did that?"
Never. I don't bother with such foolishness. I give to people who are actually in need. Do you see how ridiculous you sound to say "that scary start up phase"? Show me one business owner who's homeless, who wakes up in the morning and is unsure whether he or she will eat that day. The homeless woman could only hope to be so lucky to worry about having a successful business.
"Your judgments of me are bizarro."
No, I just see the world for what it is. You have a lot of crazy notions and priorities, and you still fail to address what I've previously said. Are you so thick-headed in real life that nobody can have a meaningful intellectual discussion with you?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 13, 2007 4:53 PMActually, HB, I'm becoming more and more anarcho-capitalist. It's cheaper to bribe the bandits with 10% or even 20%, than give more to the government. As I've blogged before, and I'll find the link for you later, the bandits will take 10% rather than have to fight you. The government, on the other hand, has the authority to demand as much from you as is necessary.
I have a problem with the typical concept of law. Laws are about how government administers its own business, not our own lives. We already have our natural rights of life, liberty and property, with no need of "law" to tell us that they exist or how they are to be defended.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 13, 2007 5:00 PMDagny hits the nail on the head. I do not have a "Pragmatist Philosophy;" I exhibit pragmatic behavior and try to encourage the same from others.
Perry, I find the "anarcho-capitalist" view of law at opposition with your hero, Frederic Bastiat's theory of just law. History is pretty well populated with bandits who exceeded their natural 10% limitation capriciously when opportunities arose.
Perry,
Peter Leeson of George Mason has done some interesting work on anarcho-capitalism that you might be interested in:
Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at July 14, 2007 11:27 AMIt occurs to me that in posting comment number 26 on the same subject I may be beating the proverbial dead horse but here goes anyway.
Terri asks, “are you saying that if 51% of the people want X and 49% don't and Congress has created the law and it has passed the test(s) of the Supreme Court that at that point I should say that the 49% get their way?"
Yes, the 49% should get their way IF their way supports individual rights and the 51% want to remove individual rights.
I am saying that the proper constitutional and, not coincidentally, moral criterion by which to judge whether to support or oppose a Law X is based on whether the law adds to or usurps individual rights. It doesn’t really matter what 49% want or what 51% want or what the Supreme Court decides.
To go back to the original example, I therefore oppose Part D as it seriously usurps the individual rights of millions of American taxpayers including myself.
What part of this isn’t clear? On what possible basis beside some collectivist argument about need can it be disputed?
At least I noted that Terri answered the question of who should decide. She seems to think the final authority should rest with the Supreme Court. I think that is only 9 people, most of them men, and only 5 have to agree on any given item. Are you willing to let those 9 people make your decisions? I’m sure JK can provide you and extensive list of really bad Supreme Court decisions over the years.
Kelo v. the city of New London anyone?
jk, history is replete with examples of any criminal taking advantage of a situation. The reason a bandit wouldn't want more than 10% from me is because he'd rather have a constant stream of 10% and peaceably keep his life, instead of risking probable death for gaining all my possessions. Besides, bandits don't want their victims to die, just like government and all other parasites.
While my anarchist leanings may seem at odds with Bastiat, it's the difference between agreeing on principle and agreeing on specifics. For example, I agree with Ron Paul on the principles of cultivating trade instead of alliances, and a non-interventionist foreign policy where we leave other nations to their own destinies unless they're threatening us. But, I disagree on the specific example of Iraq. Many libertarians today "agree" with Democrats on the specifics of Iraq and the Bush Administration's disregard for the Fourth Amendment, but they do not agree with the principle -- in the case of Feinstein, Leahy, et al, it's not what's right, but political opportunism.
I agree with Bastiat's principle of the nature of law. "Law is justice," and its sole purpose is to defend an individual's life, liberty and property. If a law takes money from someone to give to another person, then it's a bad law and must be repealed. We don't need law to have justice, because justice existed before law (remember that thing about "Life, liberty and property do not exist because men created laws."). If someone murdered someone close to me, I would blow the ****er away if I can, and that would be justice.
Where I appear to disagree with Bastiat, but I really don't, is the specifics of today's laws. When you think about it, a good laws does not tie down people, but rather the *government*. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, for example. Good laws, then, are purely administrative so that limited government knows what to do with itself, such as a neighborhood specifying a head tax to hire a constable at $X per year. Because everyone pays equally, and the benefit is shared equally (any victim of a crime can summon the constable), it is not a bad law since it does not redistribute wealth. A bad law, by contrast, ties down the people by taxing New Yorkers to pay for West Virginians' roads, by giving subsidies to domestic agriculture, by placing tariffs and quotas on foreign goods, and so on.
When I talk about minimal government, I mean not much beyond a court system and basic police force. What we have today, under the guise of "law," is so perverse that I'd rather have full anarcho-capitalism. Bastiat would cry at all the laws we have. Virtually all our laws today don't tie down government or lay out how it functions administratively. They instead tie down the people. We're in such a sorry state that we pass laws to "give" ourselves freedom, to "permit" ourselves to do things, instead of passing laws to *affirm* that government cannot infringe upon our rights.
So it follows, dagny, that a good law by definition does not infringe upon the rights of any individual, let alone any minority as great as 50% minus one person. There's no need for a tyranny of nine to decide if a law seizes from one to give to another. The people can see for themselves. The first recourse is to vote. The second is to protest. The third is to apply tar and feathers. The fourth is to shoot and shoot well.
BTW, Randy Barnett and I talked about the SCOTUS a little. He disagrees with me that the country can be ruled by a mere five, but what happened with Plessy v. Ferguson? Brown v. Board? Roe v. Wade? Raich v. Gonzalez? All it takes is five to decide, and the entire country's course can reverse.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 17, 2007 3:57 PMApril 15, 2007
Tax Day Coffee Smelling
Officially, tax day isn't until Tuesday (due to the 15th being on a Sunday and the 16th being an official holiday in D.C.) but the well known and lamented date of April 15th mustn't go by without some discussion of the state of taxation in America.
"Work hard. Be faithful. You'll get your just reward."
Those words appear on a statuette my father was given on the occasion of the closing of the College of Engineering at the University of Denver, where he had tenure. (The statuette was of a conscientious gentleman with a giant blue screw through his torso.) They can just as well be applied to American taxpayers who have earned a high school diploma or better in their educational career.
The preceeding chart comes from a fascinating April 4, 2007 study report by Robert Rector et. al. of The Heritage Foundation entitled, 'The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer.' The report summarizes the chart this way:
Chart 7 compares households headed by persons without a high school diploma to households headed by persons with a high school diploma or better. Whereas the dropout-headed household paid only $9,689 in taxes in FY 2004, the higher-skill households paid $34,629— more than three times as much. While dropout-headed households received from $32,138 to $43,084 in benefits, high-skill households received less: $21,520 to $30,819. The difference in government benefits was due largely to the greater amount of means-tested aid received by low-skill households.Households headed by dropouts received $22,449 more in immediate benefits (i.e., direct and means-tested aid, education, and population-based services) than they paid in taxes. Higher-skill households paid $13,109 more in taxes than they received in immediate benefits.
OK, so you're probably wondering, what's new? What's new is the trend in dropout households in the U.S. According to the World Net Daily article that cites the study:
About two-thirds of illegal alien households are headed by someone without a high school degree. Only 10 percent of native-born Americans fit into that category.
I have advocated on these pages (and stand by it today) that immigration should be free and unlimited to non-criminal aliens, provided that citizenship (and voting rights) must still be earned and that entitlement programs that make immigrants a burden on the taxpayer are first reduced or eliminated.
The Rector report explains the realities we face.
Politically feasible changes in government policy will have little effect on the level of fiscal deficit generated by most low-skill households for decades. For example, to make the average low-skill household fiscally neutral (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received plus interest on government debt), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, all 60 means-tested aid programs and cut the cost of public education in half. It seems certain that, on average, low-skill households will generate deep fiscal deficits for the foreseeable future.
Hat tip: The Canadian Sentinel
Click continue reading to see the report's conclusion in its entirety.
Conclusion
Households headed by persons without a high school diploma are roughly 15 percent of all U.S. households. Overall, these households impose a significant fiscal burden on other taxpayers: The cost of the government benefits they consume greatly exceeds the taxes they pay to government. Before government undertakes to transfer even more economic resources to these households, it should have a very clear account of the magnitude of the economic transfers that already occur.
The substantial net tax burden imposed by low-skill U.S. households also suggests lessons for immigration policy. Recently proposed immigration legislation would greatly increase the number of poorly educated immigrants entering and living in the United States.[12] Before this policy is adopted, Congress should examine carefully the potential negative fiscal effects of low-skill immigrant households receiving services.
Politically feasible changes in government policy will have little effect on the level of fiscal deficit generated by most low-skill households for decades. For example, to make the average low-skill household fiscally neutral (taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received plus interest on government debt), it would be necessary to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, all 60 means-tested aid programs and cut the cost of public education in half. It seems certain that, on average, low-skill households will generate deep fiscal deficits for the foreseeable future. Policies that reduce the future number of high school dropouts and other policies affecting future generations could reduce long-term costs.
Future government policies that would expand entitlement programs such as Medicaid would increase future deficits at the margin. Policies that reduced the out-of-wedlock childbearing rate or which increased the real educational attainments and wages of future low-skill workers could reduce deficits somewhat in the long run.
Changes to immigration policy could have a much larger effect on the fiscal deficits generated by low-skill families. Policies which would substantially increase the inflow of low-skill immigrant workers receiving services would dramatically increase the fiscal deficits described in this paper and impose substantial costs on U.S. taxpayers.
Mmmm coffee.
Bastiat talks about "the seen and the unseen." With all due respect, you -- and my brother in law -- and a lot of other people whom I highly respect -- love to point to a datum in the "seen" category and say "See?"
Lower income households provide less revenue and use more government services. Who is surprised? Those without a diploma will earn less than those with; illegal immigrants tend to be less educated than native born citizens, yup.
I contend, still, that the "unseen" value that these workers and consumers bring to the economy more than compensates for the increased use of public services. The educated in your table are able to earn what they do, in large part, because there is a less educated work force (stop him before he says "comparative advantage" -- too late!).
To allow the educated (or ambitious dropouts like me and AlexC) to get ahead and innovate frequently requires allowing them to leverage less-educated labor. As Ricardo showed, both will be wealthier.
March 29, 2007
The Real Front Line in the Iraq War
I place great importance on the lessons of history. Unfortunately, having lived only since the early sixties (and having a mediocre public school education influenced by John Dewey) I wasn't aware of a counterinsurgency war in the fifties - fought by France and the Algerian government against Muslim extremists in that country - until today.
Arthur Herman, retired professor of History at George Mason and Georgetown Universities, explains on today's WSJ Ed page how the French ultimately defeated the combatants on foreign soil but were ultimately forced to surrender to them anyway.
What happened was this: while the French military had been concentrating on fighting the insurgency in the streets and mountains in Algeria, an intellectual and cultural insurgency at home, led by the French left and the media, had been scoring its own succession of victories.(...)
Led by Jean-Paul Sartre, a campaign of denunciation got under way in which French forces were accused of being the equivalent of Nazis--an especially freighted charge coming only a decade and a half after World War II and the German occupation of France. Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre's companion, went so far as to say that the sight of a French army uniform had "the same effect on me that swastikas once did." Although many of the antiwar agitators were communists or leftist fellow travelers, their petitions and demonstrations included enough authentic heroes of the Resistance and eminent liberals like Francois Mauriac to bestow upon the movement a credible public image. The constant message it conveyed was that the true authors of violence in Algeria were not the FLN at all but the French, and that only when the latter departed would Algerians be able to sort out their destiny for themselves.
The French military and political leadership was completely blindsided by the attack. No amount of justification of the selective use of torture, not even the cancellation of the original authorization, could halt the criticism or stem the loss of public support for the war. Even as the FLN took to setting off bombs in France itself, leftist Catholic priests continued to raise funds for it, while those like Albert Camus who harbored doubts about the wisdom of handing victory to the terrorists were derided and silenced. The consensus that had informed French politics as late as 1956--namely, that abandoning Algeria was "unthinkable and unmentionable"--fell apart.
Divisions over Algeria doomed France's Fourth Republic. For its successor, the price of political survival was handing over Algeria to a totalitarian band that had lost the war on the battlefield but managed to win a stunning victory in France itself. The result was the massive flight of Algerian whites and, at home, a bloodbath as FLN terrorists put to death tens of thousands of Muslim Algerians who had been loyal to the French regime. Soldiers who had fought alongside the French were forced to swallow their medals before they were shot.
The "surge" is underway in Iraq. While long overdue it is, as Herman describes earlier in the piece, showing remarkable progress. [Read the whole thing.] But to avoid the same fate described above, America's domestic leaders need to initiate an intellectual surge on the home front. The survival of Iraqi patriots, and of America's ability to champion liberty anywhere in the world, hang in the balance.
One aspect of the comparison is inapt. The French ran Algeria as a colony. I am all for coalescing free Western nations and all but the French had much more to be guilty about.
Posted by: jk at March 29, 2007 4:55 PMAl Qaeda and their domestic apologists would certainly refer to Iraq as an American "colony" if they thought that would sour the American public's support for the counterinsurgency. Perhaps when "civil war" grows stale.
The vital point is that the Democrats, as tools of the far left, CAN lose this war for us if they aren't opposed in the arena of ideas. But they should be careful: Imagine how much more evil Bush will be to them when he declares a state of emergency and funds continued military action in Iraq by executive order - without congressional approval. I would support such a thing rather than see a repeat of Vietnam (or Algiers.)
Posted by: johngalt at March 29, 2007 5:31 PMJanuary 27, 2007
Responding to the Response
Hugh Hewitt brings us "An essay from an active duty officer with more than 25 years of service, addressed to his fellow USNA alum, Senator James Webb."
The essay is serious and forthright. Those who opposed Webb's Senate election and disagreed with his SOTU response will enjoy it. I know I did. One could criticize it for a bit of "SwiftBoating." I don't use that word as pejoratively as Senator Kerry, but I think that O'Neill and the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth erred when they mixed personal and trivial allegations with those that were far more serious.
In this essay (the officer is active duty and the piece is anonymous), the suggestion is made that the prickly, angry, ex-Republican, ex-SecNavy is still nursing a grudge over a "brigades" boxing match he lost to LTC Oliver North. It's an interesting bit of history and a better bit of gossip, seconded by another "boat school" alum who thought the same.
In the end, that critique has a little too much Oprah in it. I don't think it is fair to psychoanalyze Webb over the TV. Yet the same article makes serious points about the history of war from Thucydides and the history of the Democrats from the Civil War:
What we are witnessing today is the return of the worst hits of the Democratic Party. Going back to the American Civil War, Democrats were against THAT war and tried mightily to undermine President Lincoln. Those Democrats became known as Copperheads or Peace Democrats and, these were labels of which they were proud. They wanted the president to negotiate a peace with the Confederates and put an end to a far more bloody war than the war in Iraq when things were going so very wrong for the Union. So there is a long history of this behavior in the Democratic Party. There was a time they could only envision defeat, not victory. This was NOT true during WW I or WW II, but now the Democrats love to bring up Vietnam and the loss suffered there, and it remains for them the measuring stick against which all US military action MUST be compared. James Webb is a product of that policy failure and he is clearly embittered by it.
A great weekend-length read. As one commenter said:
Remind me NEVER to cross a Naval officer or Marine.
You'd think some folks would learn...
Human beings hardly ever learn from the experience of others. They learn; when they do, which isn't often, on their own, the hard way.
Robert Anson Heinlein
Posted by: dagny at January 27, 2007 4:40 PMJanuary 25, 2007
Senatorial Surrender Monkeys
First the Democrats...
US Senate panel opposes plan to send more troops to Iraq
"The committee adopted the measure by 12-9 vote with one Republican, Senator Chuck Hagel, breaking ranks to join the 11 Democrats on the panel in approving the resolution."
Then the Republicans...
Senate showdown looms for troop buildup in Iraq
"The Foreign Relations Committee approved the resolution Wednesday on a vote of 12-9, with Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, joining 11 Democrats in supporting the measure."
Key GOP senator opposes Bush's Iraq plan
"Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, is one of four principal sponsors of a compromise that would express the Senate's opposition to the additional deployment, but avoid calling it an "escalation" of the four-year-old war."
Brownback could back rival resolution against troop increase
War stage set: Congress v Bush
"And, with several Republicans advancing their own resolution opposing the president's troop deployment, Democrats are negotiating for a common wording that could lead to a bipartisan vote against the war."
All of this about-facing and navel gazing is nauseating, and unseemly for a stately body such as the United States Senate. But it does remind me of the way I felt back in 2003 when another group of surrender monkeys was wringing its hands. Here's what I said then and here's
what I say now.
January 24, 2007
The Best Line
I forgot it, but Larry Kudlow did not:
"A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy – and that is what we have. We are now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth – in a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs ... so far. Unemployment is low, inflation is low, and wages are rising. This economy is on the move – and our job is to keep it that way, not with more government but with more enterprise." - President Bush in last night's State of the Union
SOTU 2007
I dug it. I'll concede that Glenn Reynolds is right and it did not move a lot of fence sitters, but it solidified my support.
The health care proposal is "Dead On Arrival" says Nina Easton of FORTUNE Magazine on FOXNews, according to her sources and no one disagrees. Arnold Kling gave it an A+, the Dems a DOA+. It is safe to say he doesn't have a chance in hell of getting it, but it might be something the GOP could build on for 2008. The health care hybrid is broken. The Democrats want to make it more collectivist, the Republicans more free market. That's a good fight.
Yes, he said "confront the serious problem of global warming." He gave it away, too. Not in trade for policy -- it was a throw away line. Does he expect the enviros will love him now? Get ready to hear "Even President Bush says..." many times. He sold the skeptics out for nothing. Even a crack whore commands some remuneration, Mr. President. The only serious flaw in the speech. It could have been worse. I suppose.
Was it me or was Senator Grassley weeping tears of joy when the President suggested more ethanol subsidies. The dude was crying! I suppose Senator Harkin was just too disheveled to actually show on TV.
The foreign policy pitch was perfect. Like Bill Kristol, I liked the attribution of setbacks in 2006 to our enemies' successes instead of our failures. I also was relieved by the clear dividing line of the Samara Mosque bombing. War opponents act like things have been in the toilet for four years; no, things were picking up and they took a bathroom-fixture-swirly direction when the Sunnis blew up a sacred Shia site. I tell people that all the time (for which I have few friends left) and was glad to hear the President underscore it.
More money for AIDS and Malaria in Africa. We can hope that we help only a few fewer than we hurt, but it polls well.
The pitch to :"Madame Speaker" at the beginning was perfect, as was the salute to Dad. He pulled up just in time before it went too far. The language was good. Since Gersten and Frum are gone, you don't hear many good turns of phrase but last night had a few: "Putting in earmarks when even C-Span isn't watching," "You didn't vote for defeat," "we will show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory."
My brother-in-law called at the end and said he'd give it a B+. I'd certainly go there. Without the global warming sop, it would have been an A-.
UPDATE:I mistakenly cited Nina Easton as being from Forbes magazine. She is the Washington Bureau Chief for FORTUNE. I corrected the post and ThreeSources regrets the error.
January 23, 2007
Larry's Pretty Upbeat
All bad news this afternoon: AMD and Yahoo earnings disappoint, Hezbollah has Beirut in flames, Bush approval ratings actually go negative (okay, I made the last one up, but barely).
When you need a ray of sunshine, Larry Kudlow's blog is rarely a bad place to look. Today, he offers his An Excellent Economic State of the Union It's a long post, full of good signs, but I liked the end: something to remember about our so called beleaguered President.
As President George W. Bush takes the podium tonight for his seventh State of the Union message, his policy of lower marginal tax rates and a general absence of overregulation (with the exception of Sarbox, but including the opposition to carbon caps) has succeeded in nurturing low inflation and entrepreneurial economic growth.Of course, Bush gets very little credit for this in the mainstream media or in the polls, which is a shame. The truth is, the president has had the economic story basically right for six years. His overall economic record is rather solid.
Switchgrass.
January 22, 2007
W Gets an A+
It's not everyday the President gets an A+ from Arnold Kling, but he has today. In Capping a Bad Tax Break Kling applauds the prereleased details of the President's Health Care plan.
I would grade this as "A ". The question is whether he can get any Democratic support. My guess is that some of the most extravagant health insurance plans come from unions. The fact that the President's proposal is much more "progressive" than the status quo (as it stands now, the "rich" benefit the most from not having to declare the cost of gold-plated health plans as income) will not get any support from "progressives."
Hat-tip to Josh at Everyday Economist, who has some kind words for it as well.
I was concerned that the reduced deductibility was a tax increase for the rich, perversely telling employers that they cannot provide too much health care. Yet I am conceding to my economic superiors: Hendrickson, Kling, and Mankiw.
The plan would break the perverse incentive structure which allows employers to provide comprehensive care disguised as insurance as a tax-free benefit, indirectly righting the broken incentive of overusing health care because it's paid for by another.
The President gets his share of abuse on these pages (not from me, don't send the jackbooted thugs to my address Mr. Gonzales) but we do a disservice to ignore the positive features of "compassionate conservatism" where President Bush does seek to repair broken incentives.
The American Spectator also takes a look. Here's something that caught my eye.
Under the plan, individuals purchasing insurance on their own or through their employer would be exempt from paying income or payroll taxes on the first $15,000 of their income. This would translate into $4,500 for a family of four with income of $60,000. In addition, small businesses such as S-corporations would get the same tax incentives for providing healthcare as larger companies.
As an "individual purchasing insurance on my own" and prospective S corp, I like it.
Posted by: AlexC at January 22, 2007 9:45 PMJanuary 11, 2007
The Surge II
I have been suffering from gross punditry deficiency. My Satellite is still snowed in and can see the local channels but not FOXNews, CNBC (A week without Kudlow & Company", send rations!) I watched the President's Speech last night without the usual fire hose of opinion.
I thought it was a very good speech. Not much rhetorical flourish, but serious and forthright. The troop surge on which all the preliminary punditry focused is likely not the important change. The big change is that the US military is going to be set loose on the Mahdi Army and Sadr militia elements. I know whom I'd bet on.
I like that Bush had nice words for the Baker-Hamilton Commission while he ignores many of their most ridiculous ideas. One of the big strategic changes is the change of CENTCOM Command. Ralph Peters asks and answers:
Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?There's a one-word answer: Iran.
ASSIGNING a Navy aviator and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran's nuclear-weapons facilities - if that becomes necessary.
While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran's quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz - and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.
President Bush is still playing to win and I am not betting against the free world's armed forces.
No Fox News?! That's the last straw. Prepare your garrison for invasion by mercenary snow troopers from the lawless frontier within 48 hours. (And download the FEMA reimbursement forms off their website.) NOT!
Posted by: johngalt at January 11, 2007 3:28 PMI watched the address on the local Fox affiliate, thinking I might see Misters Kristol and Barnes.
Instead, I got Shepard Smith (whom it's worth canceling cable to avoid) attempting to summarize the speech in three minutes before it started. They were late turning on the President's audio because Smith was blabbering on about the opposition it was getting from Republicans and Democrats.
At the end, he had Rich Lowry and some woman "of the left" whom I did not recognize (UPDATE: Kirsten Powers). The other network broadcasts did no commentary at all after, they went straight to programming.
In short, it was worth it as a sociology experiment. My dish is mounted on the tip of a gable end, on the roof, so it almost never gets snowed out. But when it does, it's not real convenient to brush off.
Note: the outer planetary snow removal squad (JohnGalt & Dagny) did show up last night at about 2000 hours. My service had come back during the day, so I did not have the satisfaction of sending jg onto the icy roof.
Thanks. Kudlow is back to casa jk and riza. As Steinbeck would say "the world is spinning in greased grooves" once again.
January 3, 2007
Today's Tony Snow Moment
A continuing series at Extreme Mortman:
There seems to be a lot of concern about the last two minutes of Saddam Hussein’s life and less about the first 69 in which he murdered hundreds of thousands of people. That’s why he was executed.
November 9, 2006
Rummy!
I know I will miss the SecDef's pres conferences, and I suspect that the troops will miss the SecDef. I won't comment of the President's decision to change. His cabinet serves at his discretion.
I will not stand still for the Senator Durbin's of the world to imply that he leaves as a failure. I could not remember where I read this. When I went back to blog it, I couldn't find it:
"The Military cannot change itself, no organization can do that. Imagine your company or organization suddenly saying that it needs to change to meet business challenges because that's what the CEO read in a magazine over the weekend. How's that work? You spend months on 'Mission statements' and going on useless employee retreats and in the end, the same lame-o fatass managers run the same asininely redundant departments only with different titles and cost centers. How do you get a company to change? You don't change because you want to, you change because the competition forces you to change. You get creamed in a quarterly result, or you get merged with the competition. So what happens to us if our Military gets creamed in combat or 'Merged'? In that respect, Rumsfelds transformation doest seem so bad now does it?
It was in a letter to Glenn Reynolds that was published on Instapundit. It is now revived in a TCS Daily column by Josh Manchester.
I tell people I like capitalism because of tortilla packages with ZipLock(r) closures built in (now you know why I'm so pro-Immigration). I tell people that no company would go through the difficult and expensive process of changing to more expensive packaging -- except, if they thought they could increase sales. Or if they were losing sales to a competitor who did.
Change sucks. Mr. Schumpeter. It's difficult and we kind of like the way things are now. Rumsfeld turned the Schumpeterian fans on full blast and pointed the breeze at some comfortable Generals.
He wears the antipathy as a badge of honor. He should. Good luck to Mr. Gates, but Secretary Rumsfeld, you leave Washington as hero.
UPDATE: Treat yourself to reading his excellent speech at Kansas State University.
In 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower, spoke to the nation for the last time as President. He warned of a long struggle ahead. He said:
“We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope…ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method… to meet it successfully we must carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake.”
As we look back on those critical years during the Cold War, so too our grandchildren will one day look back on this time as a defining moment in America’s history. History will judge whether we did all we could to defeat a vicious extremist enemy that threatened our security, our freedom, our very way of life. Or, if we left it to the next generations to try to fight an enemy strengthened by our weakness, and emboldened by our lack of resolve.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
Bummer about Rumsfeld.
He was a master of plain spoken English.
Posted by: AlexC at November 10, 2006 12:39 AMYup. He was great as a panelist on Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" as well. A great American.
Posted by: jk at November 10, 2006 11:21 AMYes, Mr. Rumsfeld was the master of plain spokenness. Here are some fine examples:
Posted by: LatteSipper at November 10, 2006 3:04 PM"I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said." (Donald Rumsfeld Quotes)
"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone." (Donald Rumsfeld Quotes)
"I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know." (Donald Rumsfeld Quotes)
I guess the bipartisan honeymoon is waning...
It is not fair to cherry pick sentences out of transcriptions of extemporaneous speech. I know it gave Jake Tapper a gig for years of "Bushisms," but that doesn't make it right.
You can say what you want about the retiring SecDef, and I'd be unsurprised if you're not a fan, but I'd be surprised if you would not admit to his being one of the clearest speakers in politics in a long time.
October 16, 2006
Palestinians and Founders
You need a to have a lobotomy before become Secretary of State?
- Rice compared the vision of Palestinian statehood to that of American independence and the civil rights battles in one of the strongest endorsements from the Bush administration to the idea of an independent Palestinian state.
"I should never have grown up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama to become the secretary of state of the United States of America," Rice said, adding that eventually, once these visions do come true, "we wonder why did anyone ever doubt that it was possible."
Remind me again of who plays the role of George Washington, Patrick Henry, Martin Luther King? I guess the by any means necessary Malcolm X strategy is evident. Benedict Arnold?
Flashback: Some Condi '08 debate here.
(tip to HotAir)
Yes, Hot Air. I've had my fill, Ms. Malkin, thanks.
You suggest that Rice’s rhetoric is over the top, which may be fair but you open your post with the lobotomy assertion.
Secretary Rice is talking about THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE. Not Arafat. Not Hamas. She is saying that THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE have the same right to liberty as did the American colonists. And that the United States is committed to providing THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE with democracy.
She is also right to claim it as a huge accomplishment of the current administration. While Madeline Albright broke high heels chasing Yasser Arafat out of peace talks, in a post-Saddam world, the Palestinians are living under a government freely elected. And Rice points out that many of THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE are getting buyer's remorse about their choice (and let’s not forget who the other guys were).
Rice did not compare the founding fathers to terrorists, that was contrived by Ms. Malkin.
Lastly, the photo in the JP is not adjusted very well. If she were saying something they liked, would she get a better processed photo?
I still believe in Sharansky. I still believe that the promotion of freedom is the only solution to MidEast terrorism (more so after Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower"). Secretary Rice is still a forceful and eloquent advocate of promoting liberty in the MidEast. Representing the State Department (the Senior Partners' envoy on Earth now that Wolfram & Hart has closed), she must advocate the diplomatic line.
She is the best Secretary of State in modern history and a compelling promoter of liberty.
Now now JK.
1) Hotair != Michelle Malkin. It's mostly other guys. As is the post I linked. But no matter. It's the messenger, not the message, I suppose.
2) Hyperbole is one thing. An absurd analogy is another.
3) Palestinian people, fine. Where are the equivalent leaders? Who's bravely throwing tea over the side of a boat? No one.
4) Here's the speech: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/73895.htm
Posted by: AlexC at October 17, 2006 1:15 PM1) mea culpa, I thought HotAir and the post were both Michelle Malkin’s. She is innocent and ThreeSources regrets the error. "Bryan" echoes bad reporting from Nathan Guttman at the JP.
2) It is not an analogy. She did not draw the parallel or analogy, that was the work of Guttman. She compared them in terms of difficulty. She ponders the "impossibility" of MidEast peace, noting how hard the revolution, civil war and civil rights struggles looked before America made them happen.
3) You’re asking about Bryan's misrepresentation of Guttman's misrepresentation. Rice never said anything close.
4) Thanks for the link. Perhaps Bryan at Hot Air and Guttman at JP might read it.
Sorry for the all caps but I strongly feel Secretary Rice does not deserve the opprobrium dished out by Guttman, Bryan, and ThreeSources. She calls for freedom and is attacked from three unlikely sources.
September 12, 2006
Who saw it?
I didn't find any discussion of the President's speech. Glenn was busy recording a podcast, even Hugh Hewitt was AWOL.
I loved it. I thought it conveyed a nice balance of tribute for the fallen with resolve to win the War on Terror. Mort Kondracke on FOXNews called it "almost Churchillian" and I'd have to agree. Most notably, the President has not lost his Sharanskyism. He believes that freedom for the MidEast is the answer.
While we've come to a bumpy patch, I'd like to ask his opponents what other choices exist? If we're going to shrink from the hard work of spreading freedom, what else will prevent attacks from Islamofascists? We can hunker down, we can play complete defense, I suppose we could all convert and trade Madisonian Democracy for shar'ia.
The President was clear, resolved, and compassionate. A badly needed home run late in the eighth. I'm just worried that nobody was watching.
I watched. Then I went over to UNN to see what kind of BS they would spew about it.
None.
Just softballer Larry Kane ruminating on the Lights.
Hmm,....did the Dems get caught flatfooted (again)?
Other than party-animal Ted Kennedy, who obviously waited until his hangover disappeared the next day, not many have come out with any commentary (except Santorum, who rules in my book!)
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at September 13, 2006 11:34 AMSeptember 4, 2006
Another One Bites the Dust!
"And another one's gone, and another one's gone. Doop doop doop da doop!"
US and Iraqi forces have arrested the second most senior figure of al-Qaida in Iraq and killed 20 fellow militants.{...}
"Hamid al-Suaidi led a group that kidnapped people. He ordered bombings and mortar attacks that killed a number of our armed forces and our citizens. Al-Qaida in Iraq is severely wounded," Rubaie [Iraq's national security advisor] said.
"After his arrest he gave critical and important information and we ended up killing 11 militants of the second tier of leaders and nine of the lower tier," Rubaie said of Suaidi.
I had to scroll through the "all 825 news articles" Google link to find one from Australia in order to avoid liberal media bias in the report. For example, the ITV [Britain] version that I took the photo from waited until the fifth of seven paragraphs before mentioning the captured man's name, and even then did it thusly:
Hours after an "embarrassed" US military again postponed a ceremony to hand command of Iraqi troops to the government, the national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie summoned reporters to a news conference to announce that Hamid Juma Faris al-Suaidi had been seized some days ago.
So after starting the story with, "Security officials [no mention of whose] claim [as it's apparently in dispute] to have arrested the second-in-command of the terror [what, no scare quotes?] group al-Qaeda in Iraq," they morphed this news item into a slanted report on the so-called occupation of Iraq by the US military. In the process they inplicity question Washington's sincerity to "let Americans go home."
If you still wonder why the majority public opinion is that things are going "badly" in Iraq, here's your answer.
Al-Qaida in Iraq?
Posted by: jk at September 4, 2006 10:48 AMIs it me,..or does that green thingy under his chin look like the bottom of a gallows??
What is that? I've seen that picture a hundred times and never quite got it.
The New Republic today says that this guy wasn't important and that the London explosive guys weren't really dangerous. Even our wins are losses.
Posted by: jk at September 5, 2006 1:14 PMJuly 19, 2006
Stem Cells
Glenn Reynolds said it best. The good news is that we finally have a presidential veto. The bad news is that it is on stem-cell research.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will use his first veto on Wednesday to stop legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research championed by top scientists and desired by most Americans."The president has had a clear principled stand on this issue since August of 2001 and he has made clear from the beginning that if this bill came to him he would veto it and so this is what he's going to do today," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
The U.S. Senate approved the legislation, which has also been passed by the House of Representatives, on Tuesday. But neither chamber expects to have the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. It would be Bush's first veto since taking office more than five years ago.
JohnGalt was biting his tongue in a comment below, as we both praised President Bush for his muscular reaction to terrorism and his refusal to ask Israel for a cease fire.
Unclench your jaw my friend. This issue is complex. I am guessing that we are on the same side in a way. Using a pro-life argument to block scientific research rubs me the wrong way, and I'm guessing that is what disturbs you.
On the other hand, kimosabe, we are talking about Federal funding of research. Private companies can do what they want. Applying limits to Federal Funding seems very legitimate even if don't happen to agree with the reason. I'll allow you to make the case for Federal funding.
As a pragmatist, I just want to crawl back into bed. I work at home now and the temptation is always there. The GOP leadership was both foolish and myopic to allow this to transpire. This puts the President in a very bad light and will hurt Republicans.
The Glenn Reynolds argument will seize the issue. Every bill that he did not veto is now suitable for highlight. The farm bill, porcine appropriations: every bill is now subject to the question why X was okay but Y was worth a veto.
The Senate did not have time to pass a resolution supporting Israel, but we can embarrass the President with a little political gamesmanship. A bad, bad day to be a Republican.
Your turn.
Excellent analysis of the political implications, but you seem to be overlooking the fact that the politician who is going against the majority public opinion is term-limited, while all those in Congress who bucked the president still have to face the voters again someday.
Well done on the Federal funding angle, but even an Objectivist (notice the absence of the curious term "Randian") must be practical. Unlike the president, when I take it upon myself to dismantle the present practice of Federal funding of research I will not start with the branch of human biotechnology that holds the greatest promise for the future of humanity since penicillin.
Dagny said it best this morning: "He's been in office nearly six years and the first spending bill he's seen fit to veto is this one?" Please.
Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2006 3:09 PMDagny's hit that which I dislike the most. This One? Huh?
I will actually defend resident Bush. I will not defend the soi disant GOP Congress who set up this fiasco.
President Bush said in a widely noted 2001 speech what he would and would not do. Congress can certainly test him, but I don't see why his own party is so predisposed.
The Federal funding angle is not simply a quest for less spending. Although neither you nor I are particularly bothered by this, many folks are. Not using Federal funds for something to which many are opposed seems defensible. The Bridge to Nowhere is stupid but at least they're not making out of kittens.
My personal feelings pretty closely match James Taranto's. Politically he points out that the most vulnerable GOP Senators voted against the proposition.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008675
Posted by: jk at July 19, 2006 4:20 PMMy point is that Federal funding is not the president's reason for the veto. Indeed, he boasts of being the first president to fund such research, to the tune of $90 million. His justification? Only "embryos that had already been destroyed" could be used. THIS is what the president describes as a "balance between the needs of science and the demands of conscience?" No sir. It is a compromise of the rights of individuals to their own lives and bodies and the right to improve them through human ingenuity and reason to the demands of YOUR conscience, and that of others like you.
It must be universally agreed that to take the life of another individual is an immoral act when not in self-defense. But please explain the difference between a number of artificially inseminated human embryos that are not artificially implanted into a uterus, and an equal number of the same woman's eggs that are naturally released from her ovaries and uneventfully discarded every 28 days. Are the unfertilized eggs also the domain of the state? Once artificially inseminated is it then a capital crime for a woman and her physician to choose only a fraction of them for implantation? Are the unchosen ones victims of murder?
It is often said that, "Life begins at conception." Without even engaging in the abortion debate, wherein the individual rights of a dependent parasitic being are given primacy by some over those of its host, we can see that insemination in vitro is incapable of conceiving a life unless said embryo is then implanted into a woman's womb. Absent the necessary conditions for life an embryo is no greater than the sum of its parts.
The "demands of conscience" that the president holds sacrosanct essentially demand that no man and no woman may permit their discarded genetic material from being mixed in a laboratory setting for even the most noble of purposes: The saving or the improvement of a human life. This taboo is a remnant of the same sensibilities that decried in vitro fertilization in the first place as "unnatural" and "playing God." These are certainly not valid reasons for infringing the liberties of others who are not individually bound by such externally imposed dogmas.
Now, you may say that the veto of this bill does not outlaw embryonic stem cell research, but merely Federal funding of it. I say this is splitting hairs. As long as Federal funding is available for other public health issues and not this one, market forces will act to retard this important and promising work.
Posted by: johngalt at July 20, 2006 2:04 AMJuly 16, 2006
Iranian Nukes? We'll Soon Know
We knew this was coming sooner rather than later when we witnessed the "elections" of Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. When the "imperialist" American administration and the "Hitler" and "Ghengis Khan" like Israelis did nothing to provoke open warfare with Iran, those swell Iranian mullahs grew tired of waiting. As Robert Tracinski writes, "If, in the face of repeated threats and provocation by an aggressive dictatorship, you refuse to go to war, the war will eventually come to you." Two years after the 'forward strategy of freedom' swept the Syrian army out of Lebanon, Hezbollah was under growing pressure to leave as well. No reasonable person should have expected them to leave peacefully. (What do you think they are, pluralistic democrats? No, they're Islamofascists you fools!)
A timely example of such a fool is Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, who said on Fox News Sunday this morning that, essentially, it's Bush's fault! Dodd attributes the military action in south Lebanon to diplomatic failure:
"It seems to be that you have to go beyond just understanding the friendship, which is important, but for Israel's benefit and our own, we have missed, I think over the last number of years, the ability to really engage in the kind of diplomatic efforts in the middle east. From 1967 up until the end of the Clinton administration, every administration has remained very, very engaged in the middle east. This administration unfortunately has seen the word diplomacy and negotiation as somehow a favor to your enemies. I think unfortunately we've allowed this time to elapse over the last several years, the resolution 1559 was adopted two years ago, and the administration's done nothing in my view to really insist that the Lebanese rid southern Lebanon of Hezbollah and so this time has gone through without really engaging in the process thus we find ourselves today, Israel certainly has the right to defend itself. What it's doing is absolutely necessary. If Lebanon and Syria will recognize that those soldiers need to be returned and also Hezbollah has to get out of southern Lebanon then I think you could bring a cease-fire about."
To be fair, it has been nearly five years since Islamofascists unilaterally slaughtered 3000 American civilians with airliners. But despite this, why is Dodd still endorsing the realpolitik appeasement cum stability strategy of the past thirty years? Does he genuinely believe that it will lead to regional and worldwide peace if we just give it another decade or three to work itself out?
I can't say whether it is a symptom or a cause of America's confusion in general, or Dodd's in particular, but there is clearly a filter in place between the events of the mideast and the front pages of America's news media. Compare some recent news excerpts in America to those in, notably, Australia:
WSJ- 'World Leadership Reacts To Escalating Mideast Violence'
"Haifa was hit with at least 20 rockets fired by Lebanese guerillas, in retaliation for a wave of bombings by Israeli airplanes early Sunday morning when about 18 powerful explosions rocked southern Beirut."
AP (via Houston Chronicle)- 'Hezbollah rocket barrage kills 8 in Haifa'
"Hezbollah's firing of at least 20 rockets at Haifa and 30 elsewhere came after Israel unleashed its fiercest bombardment yet of the Lebanese capital, starting after midnight Saturday."
And, in the most offensive of my three examples,
Chigago Tribune- '2 dead on Israeli warship; jets attack Lebanon anew'
"A draft resolution under consideration, from Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh, demanded the release of Lebanese captives and detainees in Israeli prisons, and supported Lebanon's right to "liberate them by all legitimate means."
Meanwhile, Israeli warplanes renewed attacks on Lebanon early Saturday, targeting bridges, fuel depots and gas stations in the east and south, security officials said."
[...]
""You wanted an open war and we are ready for an open war," Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said in a taped statement broadcast Friday. He vowed to strike even deeper into Israel with rockets."
The clear message to American voters: The "cycle of violence" continues and Hezbollah/Lebanon are defending their sovereignty from Israeli aggression.
In contrast, Australians read the following headlines:
The Australian- 'Militants' missile hits ship with Iranian troops' help'
"Israel says the troops involved in firing the missile were from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite corps of more than 200,000 fighters that is independent of the regular armed forces and controlled by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
[...]
"A military official said the group was also believed to have longer-range projectiles that could hit the Israeli commercial hub of Tel Aviv."
The Australian- 'Strikes to intensify in four-stage strategy'
"In the first stage, which began shortly after the Hezbollah incursion across the border last Wednesday, Israeli warplanes attacked missile caches in south Lebanon and elsewhere, particularly those housing long-range missiles.
Fifty caches, some hidden underground and in private homes, were reportedly destroyed. It is unclear what percentage of the 13,000 missiles known to be in Hezbollah hands that accounts for."
[...]
"In the second stage, which began early on Friday, warplanes attacked the heart of Hezbollah power, shattering high-rise buildings in south Beirut housing the militia's command structure as well as the home of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was reportedly trapped for a while in the underground command centre when the building above it collapsed."
"The third and fourth stages are still secret. However, the sources said the operation calls for each of the four stages to be more powerful than the previous one."
[...]
"Israeli officials say the international community will not force Israel to stop before its goals are achieved."
Sydney Morning Herald- 'With US backing, Israel determined to go for the kill'
"Israel's goal is to either eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat, or altogether. The broader goal of the US is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush Administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East.
Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants - with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike."
[...]
"Israel and the US would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled. "It seems like we will go to the end now," said Israel's ambassador to the US, Daniel Ayalon. "We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill - Hezbollah's neutralisation."
These stories give a far different perspective on the current munitions exchanges: Israel is under attack by Iran-sponsored terrorists embedded in a third nation, Lebanon. Hezbollah rockets target Israeli civilians while Israeli laser-guided bombs target, Hezbollah rockets. Contrary to the protestations and accusations of one Christopher Dodd, the Bush adminstration has clearly been working in concert with regional and world governments to lay the groundwork for Israel to help Lebanon exorcise Hezbollah from its cities and countryside without manic diplomatic attempts to protect the terrorists.
Dodd warns that, "This could spin out of control to such a degree that we have a major, major war in the middle east." The reality is that the cold phase of that war has been raging since at least 1979, with Iran's Islamic revolution. Iran has decided it is time to turn up the heat on this war and it certainly appears that Israel, the Bush adminstration and key western governments anticipated it, were prepared for it, and are in the process of winning it.
There is little reason for concern that Israel's defense forces will fail in this effort. The two areas of concern are that diplomatic failures will allow allies like France and Russia to reverse course and, more ominously, that Iran's threat that attacking Syria " ... will definitely face the Zionist regime with unimaginable damages" portends their possession and imminent detonation of a nuclear bomb. Let us hope that western intelligence and military authorities have this matter as well in hand as they appear to have Hezbollah's rockets.
I hate to respond to a thoughtful post with an anecdote, but I have been thinking about Senator Dodd all week. I did not know he was on FNS, I have that TiVoed and will watch it soon.
I have been considering the Senator from Connecticut who is still respected by his party because I purchased some Contra Cafe coffee on July 4, and it recently showed up. The coffee is great and is grown by former freedom fighters in Nicaragua.
I think of Senator Dodd because I remember his fighting President Reagan tooth and nail. I think of he and Kris Kristofferson as leading the pro-Sandinista movement in the US. Rather than admit he was wrong, Dodd -- 20 years later -- opposed the nomination of Otto Reich to be Assistant Secretary of State. His crime? Supporting democracy against communism in the Western Hemisphere.
And one quibble. I would disagree with conflating the Iranian and Palestinian elections. The election in Iran was a farce and remains worthy of scare quotes. The election in palestinian-controlled-Isreal, however, was legitimate.
I'm not happy that they chose Hamas, though people should remember the other choice was Fatah. They were, however, real and legitimate elections and their constituencies are getting the government they deserve.
I include their number in my accounting of folks living under self elected government.
Yes, I hesitated to group them together for the reasons you mentioned, but I was trying to economize on words in this post, believe it or not. In defense I'll point out that when your democratic choices are limited by force or by "belief in unproven things" it is not a free election in either case.
I can live with this quibble though. My charming bride said she wasn't sure she shares my sanquinity that western intelligence and military authorities have this matter "well in hand."
That comment forced me to consider the source of my optimism. I re-read my own post to find the answer: The unprecented combination of Israeli resolve to "to to the end now," and not go "part way and be held hostage again," coupled with supportive words from key Arab leaders. The Israelis are implementing the Bush Doctrine and no one of consequence - not the multiculturalists of Old Europe nor the Islamic apologists of Egypt or Saudi Arabia - dares, strike that, chooses, to stand in their way. Selfishly, they all want Hezbollah "crippled" or, better yet, "neutralized."
Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2006 7:33 PMJune 8, 2006
Victories
- In addition to success with his nominations, Bush also is presiding over a booming economy and is even scoring some foreign policy advances, although Iraq remains bloody.
“In today’s political climate, daily headlines and fast-moving events make it easy to lose the forest for the trees,” Bush counselor Dan Bartlett wrote in a memo this week. “But there is a clear tide of positive developments that reflect the president’s ability to get things done.”
Bartlett’s memo was dismissed as “happy talk” by Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News. And White House correspondent Ken Herman of Cox Newspapers noted that Barlett “found reason for optimism in Iraq ... on a day when gunmen rounded up 56 people at a Baghdad bus stop.”
Yet the White House remains convinced it is not getting a fair shake from the mainstream media.
“We hear a great deal about the problems we face,” Bush aide Peter Wehner wrote in an op-ed published Monday by the Washington Post. “We hear hardly anything about encouraging developments.
“Off-key as it may sound in the current environment, a strong case can be made that in a number of areas there are positive trends and considerable progress,” he added.
I suspect history will be much kinder to Bush 43 than the first draft is.
May 16, 2006
The Speech Is Polling Well
Insty links to a Corner post:
David Frum, the smartest man I know, got it wrong. CNN has a poll just up, and the results are staggeringly in the president's favor. 79 percent of those who watched had a very favorable or favorable view of the speech, and those who support the president's policies rose in number from 42 to 67 percent.
I shared my disillusion with a friend via email. He missed the speech, AlexC "had it on." I heard some grumbling from all the populists (Michelle Malkin enjoyed watching the President and making fun of the speech with that towering mind of GOP politics, Rep Tom Tancredo). Hugh Hewitt was measured -- even Bill O'Reilly was cautiously optimistic. But I heard and read so little from Administration supporters.
Folks, the President knocked one out of the park last night. He addressed the nation (even the broadcast networks covered it) and he addressed the topic that every pollster says is driving his approval ratings down. He discussed the issue that is dividing the Republican voters of ThreeSources. He delivered a great speech on an important topic. He outlined a compromise: comprehensive reform that most folks should be able to live with. I really expected the ThreeSourcers to rally together around this plan as good policy and good politics.
April 27, 2006
Good Language
I disagree with most all of this TNR Editorial. Yet, sometimes you must appreciate the rhetoric of the other side. The Editors call President Bush the lamest duck since James Buchanan, which I refute, but I loved the next line:
Second-term presidents often see their agenda stalled by gridlock. But haggling over substance at least has the excitement value of conflict and opposition. Bush, on the other hand, has seen his agenda die from within, of its own accord. The last years of Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Reagan were like watching an angry traffic snarl. The last years of George W. Bush's presidency are like watching a car resting on cement blocks in the front yard.
April 25, 2006
AlexC Gets Results
CNN is reporting that Tony Snow will likely take the job as White House press secretary. This is a good thing. Snow is a strong, smart, savvy and principled person. He is also a remarkable human being.
Thank God!
Posted by: TrekMedic251 at April 25, 2006 8:44 PMI don't know why the Bush Administration just hasn't listened to me from the beginning. I know wtf I'm talking about.
Posted by: AlexC at April 27, 2006 12:11 AMMarch 20, 2006
Sec. Snow Fires Back
It astounds me -- and Larry Kudlow -- that the Bush administration seems to allow others to frame the debate on the economy, in short that they never fight back. Secretary Snow, in an interview in the Wall Street Journal news pages, does just that.
"What's been happening in the United States for about 20 years is [a] long-term trend to differentiate compensation," Mr. Snow said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal last week. "Look at the Harvard economics faculty, look at doctors over here at George Washington University...look at baseball players, look at football players. We've moved into a star system for some reason which is not fully understood. Across virtually all professions, there have been growing gaps."Mr. Snow said the same phenomenon explains why compensation for corporate chief executive officers has climbed so sharply. "In an aggregate sense, it reflects the marginal productivity of CEOs. Do I trust the market for CEOs to work efficiently? Yes. Until we can find a better way to compensate CEOs, I'm going to trust the marketplace."
Wow! defending wage disparity as the product of an efficient market. I must be dreaming or something.
As hard as I have been on the Bush administration lately, it occurs to me that in the recent differences between the President and Congressional Republicans, I have been on the side of Mr. Bush. He was right on the Dubai ports deal, right on the need for a guest worker program, right on the need to extend the tax cuts. My brother-in-law said "count me in with the 38% who are still with him." Me too.
The Journal piece (remember that their news pages are pretty liberal) suggests that averages distort the picture for middle class Americans. Mirabile non dictu, I disagree. I think the naysayers are cherry-picking negative data -- and that it is getting harder and harder to find it.
An efficient economy will always have uncertainty. Buggy whip manufacturers will need to worry (unless they live in France...) but Snow had good news to share.
Mr. Snow distributed a fact sheet that showed after-tax income per person, adjusted for inflation, rose 8.2% from January 2001, when George W. Bush took office as president, through January 2006. The sheet also showed that per-person net worth -- total assets minus debt -- rose 24%, unadjusted for inflation, from early 2001 to the end of 2005. "People have more money in their pocket" and in their bank accounts, he said.
Put that in your opium pipe and smoke it, Keynesians!
March 3, 2006
Correcting the Record
Remember when the AP breathlessly reported that Bush Knew about the levees and Katrina?
Oops... They're correcting the record.
- In a March 1 story, The Associated Press reported that federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees in New Orleans, citing confidential video footage of an Aug. 28 briefing among U.S. officials.
The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.
The day before the storm hit, Bush was told there were grave concerns that the levees could be overrun. It wasn't until the next morning, as the storm was hitting, that Michael Brown, then head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said Bush had inquired about reports of breaches. Bush did not participate in that briefing.
Powerline and RedState both throw a few punches in.
Powerline:
- I think it's reasonable to assume that the AP's "clarification" is the result of our dissection of their incredibly lame story. I think this highlights, though, how hard it is for truth to catch up to error. Hundreds of newspapers printed the AP's misinformation, and it was the basis for television news on all of the broadcast networks. The correction (or "clarification") will never catch up to most of the tens of mil