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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15942)9/28/2007 10:40:45 PM
From: Bearcatbob  Respond to of 224738
 
Ohio is a different case. The GOP in Ohio was destroyed by one scandal after another. Anyone with a D would have won that seat.

Incidentally, if the Repubs had been fiscally responsible they would not have lost.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15942)9/29/2007 9:51:02 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224738
 
Carter's Oil Crisis

Leadership: Of all the errors Jimmy Carter committed, none has earned him more well-justified scorn than his handling of the 1970s energy crisis. True enough, he didn't cause it. But he did make it much, much worse.
It might come as a surprise, but we agree with those who say it's unfair to tar former President Carter with having caused the 1970s oil crisis. He didn't.

The crisis in fact began in October of 1973, after the first Arab oil embargo, and continued for years as first President Nixon and then President Ford failed to get a grip on things.

The resulting four-fold jump in oil prices wasn't Carter's fault.

But let's be clear: OPEC ended its embargo in 1974. Despite that, government-imposed price controls on output and prices remained in place. They weren't fully removed until 1981. And that is Carter's fault.

When Carter came into office in January 1977, the price of a barrel of oil was about $14. When he left a mere four years later, oil — the lifeblood of the U.S. and world economy — stood at more than $35 a barrel, a 154% rise.

The resulting double-digit inflation and surging interest rates cut into Americans' real incomes. Rosy predictions that higher inflation would at least boost employment — a mainstay at the time of Keynesian economic thought — proved disastrously false. Unemployment rose, and the resulting "stagflation" became entrenched.

Worse, the rate of productivity growth, the engine for future growth in standards of living, plunged by nearly two thirds from its postwar average of nearly 3% a year.

Pressure on oil prices built early in Carter's term in office as OPEC jacked up prices. But oil really took off in 1979, after the Shah of Iran was toppled by fundamentalist Islamic revolutionaries led by Ayatollah Khomeini. President Carter's weak and vacillating support for the Shah of Iran encouraged the rebellion.

Things went from bad to worse.

With oil prices rising out of control, Carter in June 1979 canceled his vacation and gathered dozens of mostly Democratic leaders at Camp David to discuss what to do. The address to Americans that resulted, made in July 1979, became known as the "malaise" speech.

In it, Carter suggested high oil prices weren't the problem; just Americans' tendency "to worship self-indulgence and consumption." Further, he said Americans suffered a "crisis of confidence."

He began, conspicuously, to wear a cardigan sweater. He put solar panels on the White House. He turned down the thermostat, and started burning wood in the fireplace.

None of the high-handed symbology worked, however. Later in 1979, Carter's weak response to Iran's radical regime taking 52 Americans hostage sent oil prices soaring again. Carter cut off oil imports from Iran and the mullahs imposed an oil embargo, leading to a global market panic and a surge in prices — the second oil shock of the decade.

Within weeks, gas lines formed in cities across the U.S., with cars snaking up and down streets and around city blocks. Americans left idling in gas queues felt both angry and helpless, as they watched prices soar and shortages emerge — and saw a government unable or unwilling to fix the problem.

And what was Carter's response? Mostly symbolic stuff. He had a number of chances to correct the situation. He didn't.

In his malaise speech, Carter had laid out six proposals to end the energy crisis. They included simply telling people to stop using so much energy, the creation of the Synthetic Fuels Corp. and a handful of other costly alternative energy schemes, and the formation of the Energy Department. Despite billions spent, none did the job.

Unfortunately, he waited far too long to do what he really needed to do: Namely, completely end price controls on domestic oil, kill off oil import quotas, and veto the Windfall Profits Tax Act.

All of those policy moves had, taken together, sharply curtailed U.S. oil output, boosting our dependence on foreign oil and giving OPEC's unelected potentates a virtual stranglehold over the world economy.

As a result, by the end of his term in office, Carter was less popular than Richard Nixon was during the depths of the Watergate scandal, with an approval rating of just 25%. Remember, Nixon had to resign or face impeachment proceedings.

It's pretty clear today that, absent any other policy changes, Carter could have prevented the second oil shock if he had only stood by the Shah — who had been a staunch U.S. ally in a sea of hostile Mideast governments for 25 years.

Instead, his weakness led to the upsurge in Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism across the Mideast that continues today.

Worse, Carter erred in thinking the government — and not a healthy, functioning market with realistic price signals — could end the oil crisis. It couldn't in the 1970s, and it can't today.

It's disheartening on some levels to hear many of the same proposals for our energy ills emerging from the Democrats in Congress. Have they learned nothing? Or are they just counting on average people having forgotten the misery of the Carter years?

Regardless, we know there's a way out. President Reagan, in a few bold moves within weeks of entering office, totally decontrolled oil prices. Prices peaked, the amount of oil on the market surged, and inflation's back was broken.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15942)9/29/2007 9:52:48 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Respond to of 224738
 
Dems falter on budget deadline

By DAVID TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

Sat Sep 29, 2007

WASHINGTON - The most basic job of Congress is to pass the bills that pay the costs of running the government. After criticizing Republicans for falling down on the job last year, Democrats now are the ones stumbling.

The government's new budget year begins Monday, but Congress has not completed even one of the dozen spending bills appropriating money for the day-to-day operations of 15 Cabinet departments.

President Bush has lobbed veto threat after veto threat at Democratic spending bills because, taken as a whole, they would break his budget by $23 billion or more.

Bush chided them Saturday in signing a bill that prevents a government shutdown and gives lawmakers 48 days more days to complete the budget work.

"Earlier this year, congressional leaders promised to show that they could be responsible with the people's money. Unfortunately they seem to have chosen the path of higher spending," the president said in his weekly radio address.

Democrats, after roasting Republicans last year, are vulnerable to criticism that they are doing no better.

"It is deja vu all over again," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., who a year ago was chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

He quoted the current chairman, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., as blasting Republicans in the past for "failing to meet even the most basic and minimal expectations that the country has for it by way of doing our routine business."

Most of the Democrats' appropriations failings can be blamed on the Senate, which has passed just four of the 12 spending bills.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has devoted lots of debate time to Iraq, immigration and a defense policy bill at the expense of the nuts and bolts work of passing spending bills.

Lewis said "the failure of the appropriations process can be laid squarely at the feet of the present Senate majority leader."

The Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said spending bills "are our first responsibility, not our last." He added, "We've had plenty of votes on other things — nearly 30 votes on Iraq. We should be making room for other things."

Reid said Friday he hopes to complete two more bills this coming week, before the Senate takes a vacation. He blamed Bush and GOP opposition to nonrelated bills for the delay.

"As you know, there's controversy with the president over his threats to veto all these bills," Reid said. "We know we should have gotten to them sooner, but we've had 48 filibusters we've had to deal with this year which has slowed things down significantly."

It long has been assumed that the Bush administration and Democrats would find themselves in a legislative train wreck that would not get resolved until late in the fall. Even in years when one party runs both Capitol Hill and the White House, Congress invariably needs extra time to complete its budget work.

But Democrats raised expectations in last year's campaign that they would do a better job running Congress than Republicans had.

The four bills that have passed the Senate are in House-Senate talks, including the homeland security measure and a veterans bill. The White House has backed off a veto threat on the veterans bill and Democrats are confident they can win an override vote on the homeland security measure if it contains $3 billion sought by Republicans for a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Republicans believe they can stick with Bush to sustain vetoes on the remaining bills. Democrats see little point in sending bill after bill to him to get vetoed in a fight the White House relishes

Bush has absorbed much criticism from conservative voters for failing to veto a single spending bill in his first six years in office. Many Republicans want a series of vetoes that would allow the party to reclaim its reputation as the party of smaller government.

Just as President Clinton won many of his battles with Republicans over the budget, Bush has great leverage so long as GOP lawmakers stand with him. That is the biggest reason Democrats would prefer to negotiate.

"The president needs to put down his veto pen and pick up the telephone," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "Our differences ... are relatively minor. We need to work out those differences, rather than engage in political posturing."

Democrats have some leverage, too. They are holding back action of Bush's $189 billion war request and can delay also delay the Pentagon's nonwar budget bill until the White House agrees to talks on domestic spending.

Both sides see the Pentagon spending bill, with a $40 billion increase for the military, as the engine that will power legislation encompassing all of the uncompleted bills into law — maybe by Christmas.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15942)9/29/2007 9:53:04 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224738
 
Carrying Over Carter's Ineptitude
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 04, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Leadership: In 1976, Americans thought they were sending an outsider to the White House. Today, the same policies so thoroughly discredited by Jimmy Carter's disastrous presidency define the Democratic Party.
It's tempting to think of the Carter Administration's seemingly endless series of catastrophes as an aberration brought on by a yokel peanut farmer. In fact, the former Georgia governor's thinking as president strongly resembles that of Democrats today:

• Just as Carter lamented America's "inordinate fear of communism," Democrats today accuse the president of imagining Islamic terrorists are under the bed. (By the way, some of those "imaginary" terrorists were just caught plotting to kill thousands by blowing up New York's JFK Airport.)

• While Carter believed "human rights" was the real global struggle, not the Cold War, Democrats today reject the global war on terror. It's a "bumper-sticker political slogan," says Sen. John Edwards. We should abandon Iraq, where al-Qaida is now strongest, says Sen. Barack Obama, and "focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan" — in other words, the war on terror is just a wild goose chase for the sickly (or dead) Osama bin Laden.

• As Carter refused to fight the Cold War, today's Democrats refuse to support President Bush's innovative and effective fight against terrorists — in spite of his perfect record in protecting the homeland. What Edwards calls "spying on Americans" and "torture" are the key programs that have helped foil more than a dozen terrorist plots around the world: the National Security Agency surveillance program tracking Americans' phone calls and e-mails to suspected terrorists abroad, and the CIA's foreign prisons program, allowing tough interrogation of enemy detainees.

View larger image
• Carter decimated our defenses, reducing military spending to pre-Pearl Harbor levels, and told the world that America could no longer use our armed forces abroad in defense of our interests. Today, Democratic presidential candidates are slow to specify the weapons systems they intend to scrap as "outmoded relics of the Cold War," as Obama put it last Sunday, but like both Carter and Bill Clinton, they're sure to take money from the Pentagon for spending on big domestic programs.

• Strongly reminiscent of Carter, Sen. Hillary Clinton promised to be "a president who is committed to diplomacy . . ." Carter's replacement of might with talk wreaked havoc around the world. Soon after he kissed Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev on both cheeks in Vienna, Russia invaded Afghanistan (and Osama bin Laden at age 23 would go there to organize the anti-Soviet forerunner of al-Qaida). Carter removed our nukes from South Korea to better ties with communist North Korea; today, North Korea has tested a bomb and will soon have missiles to carry them to our shores. We abandoned the Shah of Iran for "human rights" offenses; today, oil-rich Tehran is a terrorist state and soon-to-be nuclear power.

• If a future Democratic president were to apply Carteresque diplomacy to the Middle East, trying to "talk" Iran out of building nukes before they could use such weapons or give them to fellow Islamofascists in al-Qaida or other terrorist groups, the U.S., Israel or some other country might pay for it by being attacked with a nuke.

• With a huge hike in payroll taxes, Carter claimed to "fix" Social Security and keep the system solvent until 2030; it, of course, didn't work. The system goes into the red about a decade from now. Similarly, Hillary, Edwards and Obama all plan to "fix" health care, while mostly keeping mum about new taxes. Hillary even promises "$120 billion in savings" with her latest version of socialized medicine. Don't believe it: In 1970, Medicare cost less than $8 billion; now it exceeds $250 billion per year — a cost explosion none of the politicians or "experts" who fathered the program believed possible.

As Hillary noted in Sunday's debate: "The differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don't want anybody in America to be confused."

No one should be. The next Democratic president may not be as naive and incompetent as Jimmy Carter. But he or she will endanger our lives by appeasing our enemies, ravage our economy by raising our taxes, and threaten the government's solvency with misguided new government programs.

We got away with presidential ineptitude in the 1970s. In an age of terror, we may not be so lucky.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (15942)9/29/2007 9:54:24 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224738
 
Start The Trash Talk
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 28, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Media: Like groundhogs in February, critics of George Bush's economic policies are crawling out of their holes after a long sleep. Must be an election up ahead.
These varmints have been hibernating for years now. Earlier in the administration, you might recall, we were overrun with them.

They jabbered endlessly about the recession that this fellow Bush had gotten us into (though the recession began just a month after Bush took office, before any of his policies went into effect).

Then, when growth resumed, they descended on the torpid labor market ("jobless recovery," they called it). When job creation picked up, they moved on to the deficit. Then the deficit shrank . . .

So it went. In recent years, as Bush's tax cuts spawned a recovery strong enough to shrug off a stock crash, a terrorist attack, a new world war, an energy spike and a quintupling of interest rates, we've seen neither hide nor hair of our fussy friends.

Until now. Best we can figure, it was the payroll jobs report for August, which showed the first drop in four years. But whatever it was, they're back.

Pollster, communications strategist and Democratic adviser Mark Mellman was the first out of his burrow.

"It's not bad enough to be led by one of the most unpopular presidents in American history, through the most unpopular wars we have ever fought," he wrote on TheHill.com last week. "Now the GOP is being hammered by bad economic news that will likely haunt the party through next year's election."

How bad? Gallup says 64% of Americans "harbor a negative economic outlook, the highest number since September 1992 . . . just before George Bush's father was defeated in his bid for re-election."

Mellman cites other stats — from the slowdown seen by "blue chip" economists to the latest recession odds from the ever-helpful Alan Greenspan — that will warm the cockles of Democratic hearts. But it's the Gallup numbers that caught our eye.

We remember fall 1992, when it was all about "the economy, stupid," and the economy was "the worst since the Great Depression."

Never mind that we were in the 18th month of expansion, or that activity in the third quarter of that year was the strongest in three years. The anti-Bush media had their marching orders, and 92% of stories written about the economy in that stretch were negative.

Then, as soon as Clinton was elected, and even before he was sworn in, the percentage of negative stories dropped to 14%.

We're going to take a wild guess here: Mellman's missive is just the first of many downbeat assessments to come. Buckle up: We're in for some rocky economic coverage.



Email To Friend | Print | View All Editorials | Search

Back To Top

Press Center Advertise Terms of Use Privacy Policy Copyright Notice Contact Us Home
© Copyright 2007 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.