SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Doc Bones who wrote (18549)12/3/2003 10:51:05 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 793669
 
Entertaining the troops abroad

By Oliver North

TIKRIT, Iraq. — There's a time and a place for political criticism and spirited debate and Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, seems not to understand either where nor when to voice such thoughts. Miss Maines and her cohorts ran afoul of the American public last spring when, just before the war in Iraq, she said she was "ashamed" President Bush was from Texas. The comment was bad enough, but it really upset people that she made it on the eve of war and in a foreign land.
Last week Miss Maines was at it again. Heading into the holiday season, when it is especially difficult for young Americans in uniform to be so far from the ones they love, Miss Maines protested on the "Today" show, "I think people were misled and I think people are fighting a war that they didn't know they were going to be fighting."
The young Americans fighting this war here in Iraq don't believe they were misled. Their morale is high, their spirits are strong. They are doing a magnificent job and would like to know they have the support of their fellow Americans for what they're doing.
I've been traveling with members of the Army's 4th Infantry Division, and these soldiers don't deserve to return home to the kind of welcome my fellow veterans got when we returned from Vietnam. These soldiers are fighting the good fight and they don't need accusations from celebrity critics like the Dixie Chicks.
Nor do they deserve to have their actions chronicled by the likes of Sean Penn whom San Francisco Chronicle editor Phil Bronstein is considering hiring as a war correspondent. You may remember that Mr. Penn paid a controversial visit to Saddam's Iraq before the start of the war, so he could pursue "a deeper understanding of this frightening conflict." But the only "deeper understanding" he came to was his admission afterward that he was used as a dupe and a propaganda tool by the Iraqi leader. Yet that didn't stop Mr. Penn from accusing President Bush of "teaching a master class in the manifestation of rage into hatred."
Membership in Hollywood's Blame American First crowd was not always as big as it is today. During World War II, Clark Gable, Mickey Rooney and Jimmy Stewart were just a few of Hollywood's leading actors who served in uniform. And of course celebrities like Marilyn Monroe, Ann-Margret, Connie Stevens, and Raquel Welch didn't spend their free time criticizing the president or the troops. Instead, they joined Bob Hope and the USO in freely giving their time to entertain soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines overseas.
Today, actors like Gary Sinise and performers like Wayne Newton, are the exception rather than the rule on a USO tour.
Wayne Newton, one of the world's great entertainers, first performed on a USO tour at age 8, and has been entertaining the troops — on land and at sea, at home and abroad — consistently since Vietnam. He has given up holidays, vacations and various other opportunities to be with soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in faraway places. Two years ago, "Mr. Las Vegas" was named the chairman of the USO Celebrity Circle. I asked him how he recruits other performers to join him. "Like everything else, Colonel," said Newton, "there are those that run for the woods when times get a little tough and those that pick up the phone and say, 'Hey, you're going; count me in.' Those are the kind of people we have."
One of those who regularly picks up the phone to volunteer his time is actor Gary Sinise, who, this year, has been to Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, Italy, Germany and Fort Stewart, Ga. Now he's back in Iraq, spending his Thanksgiving vacation shaking hands and talking with the 5,000 soldiers and Marines at one of the USO-sponsored events. Instantly recognizable from his roles in such movies as "Forrest Gump," "Apollo 13," "Truman" and dozens of others, Mr. Sinise is a favorite among the troops and a strong supporter of the USO, which some people describe as "an island of tranquility in a sea of madness."
But after the holiday week, the American public can give thanks that the young men and women who wear our country's uniform are more than capable of navigating that "sea of madness." I asked Wayne Newton what the response of troops has been to his visit here.
"The response has been phenomenal," he told me. "We have been mixing and mingling in many different places in the last week and I have not heard one gripe, I have not seen one person who's down in the dumps. Everybody's charged. They know what they're here for; they're here to take care of business and they're doing exactly that."
America could use fewer celebrities like the Dixie Chicks and Sean Penn and more like Wayne Newton and Gary Sinise. The soldiers of the Army's 4th Infantry Division told me how much they appreciate the support of the American public and they wished you a Happy Thanksgiving.

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance.

washingtontimes.com



To: Doc Bones who wrote (18549)12/3/2003 10:51:14 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793669
 
Beware of economic hubris

By Richard W. Rahn

President Bush's economic team can rightfully be proud of their policies that produced the sizzling 8.2 percent real economic growth in the last quarter. But before they get too high on their own accomplishments, they need to look at the history of those who began to feel infallible in their economic policymaking.
The Nixon economic team produced strong growth numbers going into the 1972 election, but failed to appreciate the disaster of the surge in inflation stemming from the foolish, excessive expansion of the money supply. Subsequent attempts to control the inflation through wage and price controls only made matters worse. The first President Bush unwisely accepted the advice of his Office of Management and Budget director to increase taxes in 1990, which turned out to be both an economic and political disaster.
President Clinton's economic team thought they could do no wrong, and they were widely acclaimed for the budget surpluses (under the Republican Congress) that occurred in the 1998-2001 period. In retrospect, the budget surpluses, along with mistakes by the Fed and other government regulators, led to the 2001 recession. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and many others failed to realize the budget surpluses were created primarily by huge increases in the effective taxation of capital (i.e., savings and productive investment). Because of the strong economic growth and the stock market bubble, corporate earnings and capital gains realizations soared.
The tax code has been increasingly slanted — as it was under the Clinton tax increase of 1993 — to tax upper-income individuals, who provide the bulk of the savings and thus receive a large portion of their income through dividends and capital gains. During this period, much of this increase in earnings from capital was funneled off in taxes to reduce government debt — which is a low value use — rather than being invested in higher value private uses. It is also true that considerable capital was wasted during the bubble by overinvestment in certain high-tech sectors, both because of poor business judgments and mistakes by the Federal Communications Commission and others.
But the fact remains, if President Clinton had put in place a Bush-like tax rate reduction no later than the last half of 2000, the recession would probably have been avoided because private impediments to working, saving and investing would have been reduced.
As noted above, economic hubris is a bipartisan sin. Officials of the current administration have imposed trade restrictions on steel, lumber and most recently some textiles despite warnings from even their own and outside economists that these restrictions are destructive. (Fortunately, the administration is backing off the steel tariffs because of expected European retaliation.) The administration has failed to keep government spending — even nondefense — under reasonable control, and continues to flirt with damaging regulations, although it knows major increases in government spending and regulations drain the vitality out of the economy. These actions have discouraged necessary foreign investment, as the U.S. looks less hospitable and more reckless.
One administration official, referring to the proposed interest reporting regulation, recently wrote, "nor will it have any noticeable effect on capital investment in the United States," even though there has been considerable expert testimony to the opposite, and no evidence has been provided to support the above assertion. The result of these actions has been a fall in the value of the dollar against the euro and some other currencies and a steep rise in the prices of internationally trading commodities. These commodity price increases are likely to show up in higher prices to consumers that may cause the Fed to curtail money growth and increase interest rates to stop any increase in inflation, which could choke off the economic expansion.
The administration is giving in to special business and labor interests, plus those who slurp at the trough of government spending programs, and even to French tax collectors (because of the proposed regulation to make American banks bear the costs of helping the French socialist state collect taxes on capital from French citizens who invest in the U.S.), rather than the overall interests of the American people. These foolish and dangerous actions are unlikely to do major damage before the election but, unless they are quickly reversed now, a second Bush administration might well find itself in great economic difficulty — much like the second Nixon administration.
Bush administration officials have been able to get away with this economic nonsense because much of which is spouted from their Democratic opponents is even worse, and too few in the press understand good economics. However, it is not too late for Bush administration economic officials to show they are responsible economic stewards by discarding the above-mentioned economic claptrap, and instead spend the time extolling the virtues of the tax cuts, for which they are genuine economic policy heroes.
History clearly shows good economics is good politics, and that bad economics turns out to be bad politics.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.



washingtontimes.com



To: Doc Bones who wrote (18549)12/4/2003 12:40:39 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793669
 
Good find, Doc. This article describes a problem that many of us here have.


The Libertarian Alternative?

By Arnold Kling Published 12/04/2003
Tech Central Station

"Suppose that, like many Americans, you believe in reproductive choice as well as school choice. In an ideal world, you could vote for a presidential candidate and political party that reflects both positions. In today's political system, however, any American holding these two views must confront the uncomfortable dilemma of choosing one at the expense of the other."
-- Ted Halstead and Michael Lind, The Radical Center



Halstead and Lind have identified the problem for those of us who lean libertarian. Unlike pure libertarians, who disdainfully refrain from voting for any conventional candidate, we Leaners make lesser-of-evils choices from among the major parties. But the choice is still hard.



I used to evaluate candidates for President by their taste in economists, on the theory that getting free markets right is at least half the battle. In 1992, Bill Clinton was taking advice from one of my favorite economists, Alan Blinder. So I voted for Clinton.



Meanwhile, my wife evaluated the 1992 race on the basis of the candidates' taste in women. On the one hand, she saw Barbara Bush. On the other, she saw Hillary Clinton and Gennifer Flowers. My wife voted for Bush.



In the event, Blinder was appointed to the Council of Economic Advisers and then to the Fed, where he was named vice-Chairman. But he was less prominent than Hillary, even on the Clinton Administration's largest economic initiative, which was its health care proposal. In retrospect, I think you would have to say that, once again, my wife's instinct was sharper.



A Bad Month for Libertarians



For those of us who lean libertarian, November was a lousy month:



Howard Dean came out in favor of re-regulation of "utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options." As Megan McArdle put it, "those of us with libertarian tendencies had better keep looking for a politician who is really interested in making markets work."


We saw the Bush Administration railroad through a prescription drug bill that appears to take the country a little closer to socialized medicine, over the objection of Democratic opponents who wanted it to go further.


Only a flimsy filibuster stood between the Bush Administration and passage of energy legislation, brought to you in part by Archer-Daniels-Midland, the company that produces the gasoline additive ethanol -- energy made from pork. The bill was described by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren as "Hundreds of pages of corporate welfare."


Uncomfortable with Chinese bras, the boobs in the Bush Administration decided to put on import restrictions, leading Bruce Bartlett to reluctantly conclude that "From the point of view of trade, it is the worst administration since Herbert Hoover helped bring on the Great Depression by signing the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930."


The Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee pointed out that public financing of political campaigns has gotten out of control. They noted that in recent health-labor-education legislation alone there were nearly $1 billion in "earmarks," which means pet projects of legislators that serve purely political purposes.


When the Massachusetts gay marriage decision came down, Republicans seized this as an "opportunity" to re-assert a strong role for government in regulating social behavior.


A Bright Spot



Amidst all this gloomy news, one of the few bright spots was Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman. Taking on Howard Dean, Lieberman said, "That now makes three major areas of economic policy where he seems intent on turning back the clock. He would increase the tax burden on the middle class, raise trade barriers, and now invite new micromanagement of business."



Columnist Walter Shapiro noted that "aside from the brave and lonely free-trade advocacy of Joe Lieberman, all the White House hopefuls have embraced some form of protectionism." It is particularly brave and lonely in a party where trade unions are both protectionist and powerful.



In the past, Lieberman has seemed receptive to the arguments for choice in social behavior as well as for choice in markets. While he made a disappointing turnabout on school choice at the Democratic Convention in 2000, he is no worse than President Bush, who waited until after the election to back away from vouchers and instead push legislation that empowered bureaucrats, not parents.



The Draykop Factor



There is a yiddish expression to describe someone who talks more than you would like. It is said that the person tries too hard to turn (Dray) your head (Kop), and so the term is draykop. Lieberman can be a bit of draykop.



One friend of mine remembers vividly the way that Lieberman seemed to overplay his religiosity after he received the Vice-presidential nomination. Trying to sound like he has an "in" with the Almighty. That's the draykop factor.



Lieberman is not the perfect candidate for libertarians, by any means. But the best candidate from an Internet/libertarian perspective is never going to be on the ballot. We have to choose from among flawed men and women. Lieberman's positions are more congenial to me than those of any other Presidential hopeful.



Thankful for President Bush



In this Thanksgiving season, even though he has given us a bad month, I am still pretty thankful that George Bush is the President. His instinct on Islamist terror and his courage in the face of opposition are qualities that I admire. In contrast, as Michael Barone points out, the so-called Democratic wing of the Democratic Party envisions an America "heeding the cautions of France, Germany, and Russia; deferring to the United Nations or NATO; seeking the respect of the protesters in the streets of London or the opinion writers in Le Monde."



Barone is describing what I call the UN Party. That may be a charitable view. To an alarming extent, the Dean Democrats represent the Ted Rall party.



Given the mood of the Democratic Party, Joe Lieberman is unlikely to win the nomination. He will be lucky to be able to speak at the convention without being booed off the stage. But if he is still in the race when Maryland holds its primary, he will get my vote. And my wife likes him, too.



Copyright © 2003 Tech Central Station - www.techcentralstation.com