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 : THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (1051)2/15/2004 4:55:13 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 2164
 
Testifying for the economy
Larry Kudlow (archive)
February 14, 2004 | Print | Send

President Bush's bounce from the capture of Saddam Hussein has faded. His State of the Union message had clear vision, but it lacked enough rhetorical punch to deliver another bounce. And now the president is taking political hits from all angles, temporarily slowing the stock market advance.

Sen. John Kerry, on the other hand, is getting a large bounce from his primary victories, with Bush-bashing on the Democratic campaign trail nearing a fever pitch. Heavy coverage by the print and broadcast media is only fuelling the charge of the anti-Bush forces.

Missing WMDs haven't helped Bush, either. Nor did his clear but somewhat flat performance on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press." Nor has lower-than-expected job growth -- although a steady-rising household survey, showing more self-employed and private-contract workers, is still the dirty little secret. Big budget deficits are also grabbing the headlines, even though they are vastly overrated in both numerical and economic terms.

What all this says is that the stock market rally has come under some political pressure. Bush is the pro-investor candidate, but his fortunes have momentarily slumped. Kerry is the enemy of the investor class, as well as the new Democratic class-warfare hero, but his veneer has only temporarily brightened. Stocks, of course, respond to all these factors, passing though they may be.

Time for investors to worry? Not at all. Liberal Yale economist Ray Fair has a better idea. His economic model projecting the presidential popular vote is strongly favoring Bush (although the rigorously honest Fair would have it otherwise). With a 2004 growth economy near 4 percent, low inflation and a rising jobs number, Fair's model predicts a Bush landslide with 58 percent of the popular vote.

Alan Greenspan's incredibly upbeat testimony before Congress last week was every bit as promising for a Bush re-election as Fair's conclusions. Greenspan, of course, as head of the independent central bank, is an objective economic observer. He concludes that the health of the U.S. economy is rapidly improving.

Greenspan's good-news economic gospel included a rosy-scenario forecast of nearly 5 percent economic growth, with inflation just above 1 percent. Behind that forecast is a pile of positive data:

Household and business balance sheets are in good shape. Spectacular productivity has led to outsized business profits. Business investment and production are rising more rapidly than consumer spending, which still remains strong. With the supply-side of the economy so muscular, inflation is in check and interest rates are staying low. While corporate hiring has been slow, it will soon pick up steam, with Greenspan expecting unemployment to drop to 5.5 percent this year. And finally, the current-account deficit is being comfortably financed by international markets, and an orderly dollar decline may be bottoming out.

Perversely, Greenspan's benign interest-rate outlook caused some market traders to worry that the economy is not really as strong as publicized. The absence of major interest-rate risk may have even lowered consumer confidence over the jobs outlook. But things are different today. While in the past the Fed has always acted quickly to raise rates in the wake of strong economic readings, Greenspan & Co. will remain patient following a period of intense deflation. Given the fact that core inflation remains less than 1 percent and durable-goods prices continue to fall, the central bank is right to leave interest rates alone.

During Greenspan's testimony, numerous Democrats tried to bludgeon the Fed chairman with the usual deficit hysteria. But Greenspan was very clear that the Bush tax cuts should remain in place in order to grow the economy to its fullest potential. Instead of tax hikes, he argued strongly for new spending restraint -- including new budget rules to prevent overspending.

The chairman was right again: A combination of strong economic growth and tough budget restraint -- not economy-crippling tax hikes -- will eliminate deficits.

With a budget-busting highway bill on the immediate horizon, this is not the message Congress wants to hear. But Greenspan's firm stand on budget control may embolden the president to veto the highway bill (which will undoubtedly be laden with pork). There are also rumors the president will recruit former-Sen. Phil Gramm to design new spending-control laws. This would be welcome news to conservatives. It was the Gramm-Rudman approach that held down spending in the Reagan '80s. And it was Gramm who almost unilaterally defeated the single-payer universal-health-care plan of President Clinton ten years ago.

If Greenspan and Gramm are successful in bolstering the administration's backbone on spending, business and investor confidence will improve and the economy will strengthen even more.

©2003



To: calgal who wrote (1051)2/15/2004 4:55:47 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 2164
 
A world of dictators
Paul Jacob (archive)
February 15, 2004 | Print | Send

The world is full of dictators. Fidel Castro comes to mind. After more than four decades of iron-fisted rule, he is still tossing pro-democracy activists into prison for the awful crime of being, well, pro-democracy. (Still, some in the Hollywood crowd sing his praises.)

On the other side of the world, 75 percent of Iranians voted in their last election for candidates favoring democratic reforms. As new elections approach, the ruling clerics have thrown most of these pro-democracy candidates off the ballot.

One-man rule in North Korea not only threatens nuclear attack against its neighbors, but starves its own people through an ugly combination of incompetence and evil.

Of course, who could forget our allies in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and…the list of both allied and enemy dictatorships goes on and on. Thank goodness, there aren’t any dictators in our country.

Except that there are.

Tyranny, American Style

Oh sure, we overthrew the King of England a long time ago. But, we still sometimes suffer from the dictatorship of the elected. True, our dictators don’t cut off the fingers of dissidents or take over stadiums to stage mass executions. Compared to tyrannies abroad, we’ve got it pretty good.

Still, when those in power steal the public’s right to decide the public issues of the day, when they use their power not to do the people’s will, but rather, to ride roughshod over the people they are supposed to help, then we are served a slice of dictatorship. Sometimes it is merely a taste; too often we get much more than our fill.

Under what kind of system--democracy or dictatorship--would government functionaries force you from your home simply so that they could give your land to someone else who would provide them with more tax revenue?

They’re trying to do just that in Lakewood, Ohio, and in cities throughout our country. Using eminent domain, local governments are taking homes and businesses away from those who own them, only to hand the land over to private developers to build new homes and businesses that will generate higher tax revenue. Elected dictators have stood Robin Hood on his head, shaking down the poor to give to the rich.

Granted, when using eminent domain, the owners of the property seized must be compensated by government according to the market value of the property. But after living in a home for decades, rearing your kids there, who can place a "fair" value on those memories?

On the Make to Break You

Arguably even more unfair--because uncompensated--are the governments that tax your business in order to subsidize your competition and drive you out of business.

Welcome to Knoxville, Tennessee. Last year, the city council and outgoing Mayor Victor Ashe decided the city’s convention center might no longer lose millions each year if they constructed an expensive new luxury downtown hotel with tax dollars.

This did not please the hotel owners already struggling to make a profit. Nor did it please the taxpayers of Knoxville, 80 percent of whom (according to a University of Tennessee poll) were against this plan.

In these two cities and countless others--and throughout all levels of government--special interests seek to have it their way at our expense and against our will by circumventing the democratic process. They don’t use force like brutal thugs; instead, they cheat us out of what’s ours by getting elected officials to act like dictators.

I’m not suggesting that politicians in Lakewood or Knoxville are carbon copies of Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro. They aren’t. It is merely that they are ignoring the very same principles that the world’s greatest tyrants ignore: first, that all people have a right to live their lives without powerful forces dictating their every move, and, second, that public decisions should be made democratically.

Clever Machinations

The government actions in question are wrong, even if democratically supported. But it is instructive to note that there was nothing at all democratic about these efforts. Dictators, like everyone else, easily embrace democracy when they win. But they trample upon it when they lose.

In Lakewood, citizens petitioned to put the city’s development plan to a public referendum and voters repealed the plan at the ballot box. Simple as that. The referendum and an initiative coming up next month were tough to put on the ballot, but they provide a critical check on the local politicians, and a check that did not exist anywhere else. The courts have provided no help, having ruled previously that taking land for so-called economic development, through eminent domain, is justified.

Lakewood’s politicians prophesied that society would descend into chaos if the people could trump the superior wisdom of the politicians. For some reason, they offered no warnings about the dangers of dictatorial rule by the few.

In Knoxville, the story of an initiative to block the hotel plan provides an even closer glimpse into the homegrown impulse toward dictatorship. Years ago, after the passage of term limits for local politicians in Knoxville, Nashville and Shelby County (Memphis), state legislators ever so quietly passed a law nearly tripling the petition requirements for local initiatives.

But Knoxville hotel owners pursued an initiative anyway and, though much more expensive than it would have been, they collected the 25,000 signatures they needed to put the measure on the ballot. During the course of the petition drive, the council harassed the effort by enacting new, retroactive and facially unconstitutional campaign finance requirements.

Still, once the proponents jumped through all the hoops to get the initiative certified for the ballot, the council knew the people would triumph. So, they preempted a public vote by passing the initiative, which scuttled their beloved hotel scheme.

Unfortunately, the machinations of the dictators never cease. The law is clear: once a measure is adopted by the voters, it cannot be repealed except through another vote of the people. But some council members now suggest that the council can merely adopt any initiative petition, thus escaping a vote of the people, and then--ten seconds later--the city council can turn around and repeal the very same measure voters sought to enact.

The effect of this would be an absurd fraud upon the voters, a mockery of democracy. But if you’re a dictator, it apparently makes good sense.

In a dictatorship, those in power can overrule the people. In a free society, the people can overrule those in power. This isn’t just a question for troubled countries in far off parts of the world; it remains a question for you and me at every level of our own government.

Democracy or dictatorship: which do you prefer?

Paul Jacob is Senior Fellow at U.S. Term Limits, a Townhall.com member group.

©2003 Paul Jacob



To: calgal who wrote (1051)2/15/2004 4:56:06 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 2164
 
War hero Kerry shows no policy leadership
By Jonah Goldberg
By now you must have heard John Kerry say this: "I know something about aircraft carriers for real. And if George Bush wants to make this election about national security, I have three words for him he'll understand: Bring. It. On."
I love this tagline, not because I think Kerry is a smidgen as macho as he pretends to be, but because it's a sign that we can finally put to rest a grand canard of American politics.
For more than a generation the Democrats have convinced themselves that they have a brilliant foreign policy but that their message gets lost because they are unwilling to wrap themselves in patriotic, jingoistic rhetoric.
According to this theory, Michael Dukakis was a foreign policy genius, but those mean Republicans made fun of how he looked in a tank. Indeed the whole Wes Clark campaign is (about to be was) premised on the notion that you can run like a dove if you look like a hawk.
That didn't work out, so the Democrats got the next best thing in Kerry: Michael Dukakis with an impeccable war record -- and an impeccable anti-war record.
The war record we know all about already. Kerry served with honor and distinction in Vietnam, earning several medals for his courage and valor. As for his anti-war record, among other things, Kerry outrageously slandered the men still fighting in Vietnam as war criminals and butchers, claiming in congressional testimony that American soldiers had participated in widespread "day-to-day" atrocities such as rape, torture and mutilation.
Regardless, that's not the John Kerry who's running for president. Candidate Kerry is the guy in uniform. In fact, according to most analysts and a recent lengthy behind-the-scenes account in The Boston Globe, John Kerry owes his campaign turnaround almost completely to his willingness to run as a war hero.
The political ad that got him moving in the polls is the one that brags about his leadership in Vietnam. In the ad, a Navy crewmate says, "He had unfailing instinct and unchallengeable leadership." Kerry follows up by saying ,"There's a sense, after Vietnam, that every other day is extra, that you have to do what's right and let the chips fall where they may." It's a very well-done ad. And the message is clear. Kerry the politician is Kerry the war hero.
But that message is largely nonsense. There's next to nothing in Kerry's legislative career that would earn him a Profiles in Courage Award (assuming the senior senator from Massachusetts doesn't pull some strings for him). He authored almost no significant legislation and voted as an utterly conventional Massachusetts liberal.
More to the point, Kerry's "leadership" on foreign policy has been abysmal. He voted against the first Gulf War, for the second and then against the money necessary to keep the peace, i.e. to "nation-build," which was once the core of liberal foreign policy. He's offered multiple explanations for each of those votes, many of them conflicting.
He was against almost every weapons system during the Cold War and he sided with the nuclear freeze movement. He still boasts of fighting "Ronald Reagan's illegal wars in Central America," which, to be charitable, was not the stance taken by pro-defense Democrats in the 1980s. He was one of the few Democrats who voted against lifting the arms embargo that was contributing to the mass slaughter of Bosnians.
Kerry's 1997 book on foreign policy, which he touts as prophetic on the war on terrorism, predicted that various mafias -- not al-Qaida, not Islamic fundamentalism -- posed the biggest threat to national security. It also underscored Kerry's view that the war on terrorism is nothing more than a law enforcement problem.
Whether Kerry's record reflects a coherent foreign policy or, more likely, a history of knee-jerk liberalism tempered by opportunism remains an open question. But what is clear is that Kerry represents the Democratic establishment's approach to foreign policy: adverse to the use of force, quick to defer to other nations and the U.N., untethered to an identifiable principle when caught in the winds of public or elite opinion. But, unlike previous Democratic candidates, he's a war hero.
Meanwhile, as Kerry is so quick to point out these days, George W. Bush isn't. He served in the National Guard and lackadaisically at that.
But Bush's policy is hardly lackadaisical. He says this is a war, not a law enforcement exercise. He prefers regime change to appeasement, democratic change over tyrannical stability. He thinks the U.N. is a tool of foreign policy, not a dictator of it.
This is a real contest of visions during a time when foreign policy matters to voters. So, if Americans reject Kerry in favor of Bush no one will be able to claim the American people didn't choose on the merits of the message instead of medals of the messenger. Let the contest begin.
Jonah Goldberg is a nationally syndicated columnist.