Nuclear Policy Meltdown
THE CORNER
By James S. Robbins
No big surprise that North Korea is restarting its nuclear reprocessing plant at Yongbyon. In September 2005 the North pledged to abandon its nuclear program, then tested a nuclear weapon in October 2006. In February 2007 we reached a deal that they would end their program again -- NRO analysis here -- and now that agreement has apparently failed. Our main problem is that we expect countries not to use the leverage they have to keep us off balance when it is in their interest to do so. Any agreement with North Korea will fail precisely because once the North has collected the promised aid money and reaped other benefits, they will need a new deal, thus will have to foment a crisis in order to get one. Meanwhile, they can expand their nuclear arsenal, which gives them additional security from attack. And it is hard not to connect North Korea's renewed interest in nuclear fuel reprocessing with continued nuclear developments in Iran. Our record of failure in dealing with this issue is embarrassing, and very dangerous.
********************************************************
Et Tu, Tutu?
By Roger Clegg
I usually avoid commenting on the disaster that racial preferences have been in other countries, since it's so obvious and since Thomas Sowell has written so definitively on this topic. But I can't resist noting this news item today, given the prominence of the particular critic: [Archbishop Emeritus Desmond] Tutu said rampant corruption and crime in the country was 'horrible,' and added that affirmative action had been poorly applied and had resulted in the appointment of inefficient and incompetent people occupying jobs they did not deserve. However, rugby and cricket helped in uniting the nation, he said.
***************************************************
Buffett -- Getting It
By Andrew Stuttaford
I'm no fan of Warren Buffett's politics, but when it comes to finance, I'd back him over the Solons (or should that be Nero's?) in the Congress anyday. Via the Guardian:The Nebraska-based billionaire, whose fortune is estimated at $62bn, threw his weight wholeheartedly behind Henry Paulson's rescue package for Wall Street, arguing that US industry will 'grind to a halt' without action. 'Last week, we were at the brink of something that would have made anything that's happened in financial history pale,' Buffett told CNBC television. 'I'm not saying the Paulson plan will eliminate the problems but it's absolutely necessary, in my view, to avoid going off the precipice.' Buffett, whose opinions are hugely influential among millions of private investors in the US, said that if the Treasury acts shrewdly by buying banks' distressed assets at a competitive price, taxpayers will end up as financial winners. 'I bet they'll make a profit,' said Buffett, who pointed out that hedge funds specialising in junk assets were already picking up mortgage-related securities with a view to making profits of 15% to 20%. He said a positive return was feasible if the government ignores the book value of instruments or the original cost to banks and instead pays the prevailing market rates for the bombed out assets. 'They'll pay back the $700bn and make a considerable amount of money if they approach it like that,' said Buffett. 'I would love to have $700bn at Treasury rates to buy fixed-income securities - there's a lot of money to be made.' Buffett's $5bn investment in Goldman Sachs' preferred stock was matched by a further $5bn capital raising yesterday as the bank took the opportunity to bolster its balance sheet. Goldman's shares, which fell as low as $86 last week, rose by 2% to $127.88 during early trading in New York.
****************************************************
Mark Up
By Ramesh Ponnuru
The Wall Street Journal writes in its editorial endorsement of the bailout: Another misconception is that the credit problem will vanish if only Treasury suspends 'mark-to-market' accounting -- as if those bad assets wouldn't still exist. The banks themselves would know they still have this bad paper and aren't likely to engage in much new lending. Investors also don't trust the bank marks now; imagine what they'll think if the U.S. declares that cooking the books is official policy. Mark-to-market has surely contributed to this mess and needs to be revisited. But to toss it aside wholesale now would risk turning banks into the zombies of Japan's lost decade. I don't believe that "toss[ing mark-to-market rules] aside wholesale," or even suspending them altogether, is a good idea. But I don't think the Journal's criticism applies to First Trust's proposal to suspend mark-to-market accounting for "structured (Tier 3) assets issued between December 2003 and August 2007." As for "cooking the books," commercial banks are already able to use hold-to-maturity pricing. Isn't that a large part of the reason investment banks have been converting themselves into commercial banks?
*******************************************************
NYT Must Revisit Annenberg
By Stanley Kurtz
In my new piece, 'Founding Brothers,' I present evidence of a possible cover-up of Bill Ayers' role in choosing Obama to lead the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. In particular, we now have evidence that former CAC head, Ken Rolling, may have hidden information on the Obama-Ayers link from New York Times reporter, Sam Dillon. Here is the article that came out of Dillon's conversations with Rolling. And here is a question: Given my publication of new evidence that Rolling may have misled Dillon and The New York Times about the Obama-Ayers link, will Dillon and/or the Times now revisit the issue and press Rolling, Chapman, Hallett, Ayers, and Obama for the full truth? Again, we now have concrete evidence that a Times source may not have been fully forthcoming. Doesn't this obligate the New York Times to revisit the story? Shouldn't other papers pursue the matter as well?
***********************************************************
National Greatness
By Mark Steyn
Hey, Jonah, don't let Andrew distract you from your main point: FDR put the 'Great' in the 'Great Depression'. Lots of other places - from Britain to Australia - took a hit in 1929 but, alas, they lacked an FDR to keep it going till the end of the Thirties. That's why in other countries they refer to it as 'the Depression', but only in the US is it 'Great'. (I'm confident President Obama will be able to bring us the world's first Totally Awesome Depression.)
*********************************************
Ayers and Obama
By Peter Kirsanow
Stanley Kurtz's piece today describing what appears to be an attempt to cover-up the extent of Sen. Obama's ties to William Ayers should have journalists salivating. This is a big story that, so far, the press seems determined to avoid. A rookie reporter could look at what Stanley's adduced and clearly see that Sen. Obama has engaged in serious misdirection regarding his relationship with Ayers. The ties between the two are far more lengthy and extensive than Obama admits. It appears that Ayers took a keen interest in Obama at a time when Obama was nothing more than, as Stanley puts it, 'a young and inexperienced lawyer.' Why? There are tens of thousands of young and inexperienced lawyers in Chicago. What did Ayers see in (or hear from) Obama that caused the former to take such an interest in him? Stanley shows that there's a reasonable probability that Ayers plucked Obama from obscurity to chair the Chicago Annenberg Challenge ('CAC'). Then, after working together on the CAC and directing millions to radical organizations, Ayers hosted Obama's political coming out party. That certainly looks more like a mentor-protégé relationship than a tenuous relationship between two guys who happen to live in the same neighborhood. The story of a why an unrepentant terrorist has such a close relationship with a presidential candidate should have reporters swarming over the Obama campaign demanding answers.
*************************************************************
Power Play
By Mark R. Levin
I think Paul at Powerline has a good plan. Obama is saying that, as far as he's concerned, it's full speed ahead with the debate. McCain's best move is probably to show up and debate. McCain can observe that he preferred to spend the time working to solve the financial crisis, but that Obama felt otherwise, and he (McCain) is not one to back out of a clash. McCain can also point out that the Obama who now thinks a given debate on a given night trumps dealing with a major crisis is the same Obama who wouldn't accept his challenge to a series of town hall debates during the summer. |
