--
Obama seeks to calm the Jewish waters with an Orthodox approach. (See 1 below.)
---
Ahmadinejad and Iran continue probing America's soft underbelly - South America. Will it work? You decide. (See 2 below.)
---
Attacking Romney for his involvement in Bain Capital shows the nasty side of Newt and if, as I am sure will be the case , it becomes a theme of Democrats it will simply show their abysmal lack of understanding risks involved in the start up businesses and the capital markets. My old firm raised hundreds of billions for entrepreneurs and we were highly successful but over the years not all the companies we started, financed and helped made it. (See 3 below.)
What Laffler's article proves is that income gains and consequent employment is what Wall Street financing and the capital markets are all about and if it means those who engage become wealthy so be it.
If this is the basis of "PNF/F's' rationale for embracing his "class warfare' argument so be that as well because it proves how out of step he remains with what America and Capitalism are all about.
Romney is right when he suggests our nation could never have become great focusing on envy. Nor do I believe a 'scorched earth' policy is a sign of leadership. (See 3a and 3b below.)
Here is a simple economic lesson for today:" Let's say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood....and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.
What do you think you should do?
- Raise the Ceilings, or
- Pump out the sewage
Your Choice is coming November 2012."
""There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation.
One is by the sword. The other is by debt." - John Adams, 1826
""There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation.
One is by the sword. The other is by debt." - John Adams, 1826
So you like big government then you should love the Energy Department and what their bureaucrats have accomplished. (See 4 below.)
---
Another memo reader inquired why I referred to the 'O' as' PNF/F' and I referred him to my previous memo in which I explained: "claimed on a CBS interview he was the fourth best president in history
This was his response: "yea, right behind President Stalin, President Mao, President Kim, and President Pol Pot
Let's face it: this guy is bound and determined to get us all killed." (See 5 below.)
---
Dick---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)With Jack Lew’s appointment, Jewish community again has a White House address
By Ron Kampeas
President Obama introducing Jack Lew as his choice for the new White House chief of staff,
President Obama on Monday announced that Jack Lew, his director of the Office of Budget and Management -- a Cabinet-level position -- would replace William Daley as White House chief of staff.Lew, 56, was chosen for his long years in government and his reputation as a skilled multitasker -- he was top- budget cruncher for Bill Clinton before reprising the job for Obama -- but Jewish officials were offering a sigh of relief for a subsidiary reason: Their who-we-gonna-call pleas were answered.Since Dennis Ross, Obama’s top Iran adviser, announced his departure late last year, community officials wondered who was left to call in a White House that has hemorrhaged top Jews over the last year or so. Lew, an Orthodox Jew, is close to the community and is a go-to person for Jewish events in the capital.“The reports that there's no one to talk to have always been exaggerated,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Hoenlein pointed to Peter Rouse, a counselor to Obama who has served as acting chief of staff, as someone who has always been accessible. Still, Hoenlein added, “Jack being there will be beneficial, it will foster communication.”Obama launched his administration with a strong contingent of Jewish advisers: In addition to Ross, David Axelrod was his top political adviser, Rahm Emanuel was his chief of staff and Daniel Shapiro handled the Levant desk at the National Security Council.Emanuel quit in late 2010 to run for Chicago mayor, Axelrod left soon after to help run Obama’s re-election campaign and Shapiro is now in Tel Aviv as ambassador.That left a perceived gap in the White House -- one that Lew would fill, although Jewish officials stressed that they did not expect the attention from a chief of staff that they received from mid-level staffers.“That's not the role he's going to play,” said Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, referring to the regular conference calls that Ross and Shapiro had with Jewish community leaders. “He will be an adviser to the president on all things and a gatekeeper, but to the extent the president will turn to him for his view, he has an understanding of the community and of its views.”The Obama administration clearly wanted to push across the Jewish message; Shapiro Tweeted the news in Hebrew to his followers.
Israeli ambassadors don't usually make a big deal of the appointment of a White House chief of staff.[RELATED STORY: Reactions to the appointment of Jack Lew, Orthodox Jew]Obama stressed Lew’s management savvy in announcing the appointment on Monday.“Jack’s economic advice has been invaluable and he has my complete trust, both because of his mastery of the numbers, but because of the values behind those numbers,” he said.Lew has become something of a go-to Obama administration speaker and guest for the organized Jewish community, particularly among Orthodox Jews. Most recently, he lit the “national menorah,” the giant chanukiyah that graces the National Mall and is organized by American Friends of Lubavitch.“As an American Jew, I can't think of anyone who has a deeper commitment to the United States as well as his own Jewish identity at the same time,” said Rabbi Levi Shemtov, who heads the Chabad group and noted that Lew occasionally stops by for Shabbat services. “His appointment obviously gives the White House an envoy to the Jewish community who is eloquent, respected, even beloved across the Jewish spectrum. That’s probably an added bonus rather than the core qualification.”Lew maintains a reliable shtick in his interaction with Jewish audiences: How he balances the 24/7 demands of being a top government official with the 24/6 Sabbath-observant lifestyle.A favorite tale involves a Shabbat call he received from President Clinton, and how he would not pick up despite Clinton’s claim on the answering machine that it was urgent and “God will understand.” After that, a rabbi gave Lew dispensation to answer such calls under the principle of “pikuah nefesh,” saving a life.Another favorite line during his 1990s stint, when he lived in Washington -- his family is now based in New York -- was an exchange with clergy at Beth Sholom, a synagogue in Potomac, Md. Nathan Diament, who directs the Orthodox Union’s Washington office, recalled that a rabbi would suggest jokingly that Lew might want to run for shul treasurer. Lew would rejoin that directing the OMB was complex enough, thank you very much.It’s a shtick that suggests a corny, old-fashioned sense of humor, but friends say it’s also one that is emblematic of his humility and cordiality.“Everyone would recognize that Jack's management style and personality is noticeably different from that of the previous Jewish White House chief of staff,” Diament said, a reference to Emanuel’s abrasiveness.An open question is how much harder it will be for Lew to balance family and Shabbat observance in his new role. He stays close to his daughter, Shoshana, who works at the Obama administration's Council Environmental Quality, but his wife and son remain in Riverdale, N.Y., where they are active in the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, in the Bronx borough of the city.His previous stints -- in addition to the OMB post, he was also a deputy secretary of state under Obama -- involved managing a 9-5, Monday-to-Friday bureaucracy. Running the White House means dealing with crises that have a bad habit of happening on weekends.“It's a reflection of this administration's comfort with him and his being Jewish,” Foxman said. “This is a job that is 24/7 -- but if there's respect, it works.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Growing U.S. Fears over Iran's Ties to Latin America -
Ray Walser, Douglas Farah, and Michael Shifter (Inter-American Dialogue)
·
Ray Walser, senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation: "Iran likely sees the Americas as a potential platform for waging asymmetric warfare or disruptive terror in the event of a direct conflict with Israel or the United States. Iran also colludes with Hizbullah, which aims to capitalize on South America's cocaine trade to fund its activities. Finally, Venezuela and others like Bolivia are positioned to provide Iran with long-term access to strategic materials, particularly uranium, needed for a nuclear weapons program. The threats posed by Iran and Hizbullah are genuine."
·
Douglas Farah, senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center: "The growing Iranian diplomatic, intelligence and economic presence, particularly in the ALBA states (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua), is a significant danger because the alliance is primarily based on deep and public enmity toward the United States and its allies, including a common doctrine of asymmetrical warfare that explicitly embraces the use of weapons of mass destruction as a legitimate tool to defeat the 'Empire,' as the United States is usually called."
·
Farah: "Iran has been quietly increasing its intelligence ties around the region, recruiting and training students in Iran, exchanging military attaches, building financial institutions through which to move money and working to extract other vital rare earth minerals for its missile and weapons programs."
·
Michael Shifter, president, Inter-American Dialogue: "It is worth stressing that Brazil, the region's economic and political powerhouse, is not part of Ahmadinejad's itinerary this time, as it was in 2009. That is a setback for Iran."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Bain Capital Bonfire
Romney has a good story to tell, if he's willing to tell it.
About the best that can be said about the Republican attacks on Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital is that President Obama is going to do the same thing eventually, so GOP primary voters might as well know what's coming. Yet that hardly absolves Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and others for their crude and damaging caricatures of modern business and capitalism.
Bain's business model is little more than "rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company," says Mr. Gingrich, whose previous insights into free enterprise include years of defending the taxpayer-fed business of corn ethanol.
A super PAC supporting the former House Speaker plans to spend $3.4 million in TV ads in South Carolina portraying Mr. Romney as Gordon Gekko without the social conscience. The financing for these ads will come from a billionaire who made his money in the casino business, which Mr. Gingrich apparently considers morally superior to investing in companies in the hope of making a profit.
Mr. Perry, who has no problem using taxpayer financing to back his political allies in Texas, chimes in that "I have no doubt that Mitt Romney was worried about pink slips, whether he was going to have enough of them to hand out. Because his company Bain Capital, with all the jobs that they killed, I'm sure he was worried he'd run out of pink slips."
Politics isn't subtle, and these candidates are desperate, but do they have to sound like Michael Moore?
***
We have our policy differences with Mr. Romney, but by any reasonable measure Bain Capital has been a net job and wealth creator. Founded in 1984 as an offshoot of the Bain consulting company, Bain Capital's business is a combination of private equity and venture capital. The latter means taking a flyer on start-ups that may or may not pan out, something that neither Mr. Gingrich nor Mr. Obama seem to find offensive when those investments are made by Silicon Valley firms in "clean energy."
One Bain investment during Mr. Romney's tenure was to back an entrepreneur named Tom Stemberg, who was convinced he could provide savings for small-business owners if they were willing to shop at a store instead of taking deliveries. Today, the Staples chain of business-supply stores employs 90,000 people.
Bain also backed a start-up called Bright Horizons that now manages child-care centers for more than 700 corporate clients around the world. Many other venture bets failed, but that's capitalism, which is supposed to be a profit and loss system.
The loss part is what seems to trouble the Gingrich-Perry-Obama critics, especially in Bain's private-equity business. Like some 2,300 other such U.S. equity firms, Bain looks to buy companies that are underperforming or undervalued and turn them around.
Far from "looting," this is a vital contribution to capitalism and corporate governance. One of the persistent gripes of the left is that too many CEOs make too much money even as their companies flounder. Private-equity firms target such companies or subsidiaries, replace their management, and try to unlock the underlying value in the enterprise.
Private equity helps to promote dynamic capitalism that creates wealth, rather than dinosaur capitalism of the kind that prevails in Europe and futilely tries to prevent failure. Sometimes this means closing parts of the company and laying off employees, but the overriding goal is to create value, not destroy it.
A Wall Street Journal news story this week reported that Bain in the Romney era differed from many equity firms in buying more young and thus riskier companies. This contributed to a higher rate of bankruptcy or closure—22%—for companies held by Bain after eight years.
Bain disputes the Journal's calculations, but one test of overall success is whether investors keep entrusting a firm with their money. Mr. Romney and his colleagues raised $37 million for their first fund in 1984. Today, Bain Capital manages roughly $66 billion. Its investors include college endowments and public pension funds that have increased their investments in private equity to get larger returns than stocks and bonds provide. The people who benefit from those returns thus include average workers.
Bain's turnaround hits include Sports Authority and tech-research outfit Gartner Inc., which was once a small division of an advertising firm and is now a public company worth more than $3 billion. Another success was Steel Dynamics, which used Bain money to build a new steel factory and now employs 6,000 people.
The tougher questions for Mr. Romney involve the cases in which Bain took early payouts in dividends and management fees after purchasing existing businesses that ultimately went bankrupt. There are several in this category, including another steel company called GSI, though its hundreds of job losses were far fewer than the jobs created at Steel Dynamics.
The medical-equipment maker once known as Dade International is now much larger than it was when Bain bought it in the 1990s. But Mr. Romney's company later sold its stake, and heavy debts taken on during the Bain years forced Dade to spend two months in bankruptcy in 2002 and cost 2,000 jobs. The company later resumed its rapid growth, and Siemens bought it in 2007 for $7 billion.
Certainly Bain Capital made sure that its investment partners were paid first, but the larger truth is that the invisible hand worked pretty well. Notice that because the overall job statistics for Bain investments are by all accounts positive, many critics attack the Romney record with claims about private equity in general. The left is cheering a study commissioned by the Census Bureau that found that companies bought by private-equity firms suffer more job losses soon after a buy-out than similar firms that didn't experience buy-outs.
But this is hardly surprising since the companies were acquired in part because they were underperforming. The critics also don't mention that the Census study found that firms acquired in private-equity transactions created more new jobs in the ensuing decade. Imagine what might have happened if Chrysler or GM had been bought by private equity two or three decades ago. They might have been turned around much earlier, at far less pain to fewer workers, and without any taxpayer cost.
***
The larger political point is that Mr. Romney has a good story to tell if he is willing to elevate this ugly rumble into a debate over free enterprise and America's future. This is not Mr. Romney's strength, as he prefers to talk in personal terms ("I'm an optimist!") or to lapse into his default mode as the corporate technocrat. This invites personal attacks in return and it leads him into mistakes like this week's gaffe that "I like being able to fire people who provide me services."
Mr. Romney needs to rise above the personal and base his claim to office on a defense of the system of free enterprise that has enriched America over the decades and is now under assault. Mr. Obama will attack Mr. Romney as Gordon Gekko because the President can't win by touting his own economic record. Mr. Romney's GOP opponents (with the admirable exception of Rick Santorum) are embarrassing themselves by taking the Obama line, but Mr. Romney should view this as an opportunity to stake his campaign on something larger and far more important than his own business expertise.
3a)Class Warfare and the Buffett Rule
Implementing a surtax on 'millionaires' would hurt just about everyone but the super rich like Warren Buffett.
By ARTHUR B. LAFFER
The political season has barely begun, and yet we already know that class warfare will be President Obama's key issue in the 2012 general election. It's even reared its ugly head in the Republican primaries, with the candidates trying to paint front-runner Mitt Romney as a cold-hearted capitalist and Rick Santorum proposing targeted tax breaks for the "working class" manufacturing sector.
But none in the GOP can compare with the progressive intelligentsia's obsession with tax increases on the rich to raise revenues and achieve social justice. In a New York Times op-ed last August, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett famously asked Congress to "stop coddling the super-rich," complaining that his effective tax rate was half that of the other people in his office. He then instructed Washington to raise tax rates on millionaires and billionaires like him and retain the employee payroll tax cut on those "who need every break they can get."
Waving Mr. Buffett's op-ed for all to see, Mr. Obama wasted no time in proposing a surtax on millionaires called the "Buffett Rule." Putting aside all the oohing and ahhing over Mr. Buffett's selflessness, his effective tax rate on his true income would hardly budge if this "Buffett Rule" were applied. What's worse, raising the highest tax rates would most likely worsen the budget deficit and lead to a further weakening of the economy. Everyone would suffer.
Mr. Buffett stated in his op-ed that he paid $6,938,744 in total income and payroll taxes in 2010, representing 17.4% of his taxable income, which puts his taxable income just under $40 million. Although certainly a fantastic sum, $40 million actually understates Mr. Buffett's income in 2010 by more than 250-fold.
Mr. Buffett's net worth rose by $10 billion in 2010 to $47 billion, according to Forbes Magazine. That increase, an unrealized capital gain, is part of his total income by any standard definition, including the one used by the Congressional Budget Office. After also including a $1.6 billion gift to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Mr. Buffett's true income in 2010 was much closer to $11.6 billion than the $40 million figure cited in his op-ed. Hence his true effective tax rate was only 6/100ths of 1% as opposed to 17.4%. And these are just the additions to his income that we know about.
The "Buffett Rule" would not tax the vast majority of his shielded income, including either his unrealized capital gains, which are currently taxed at zero percent, or charitable contributions, which are tax deductible. If the "Buffett Rule" were applied as President Obama proposes, then Mr. Buffett's federal tax bill would have been $14.4 million, rather than the $6.9 million he actually paid. As a fraction of his true income, his effective tax rate would only have risen from 6/100ths of 1% to 12/100ths of 1%.
Mr. Buffett's donation to the Gates Foundation goes to the heart of my critique of his public call for higher tax rates on the rich. Just look at the second contractual condition for his ongoing pledge to the Gates Foundation: "The foundation must continue to satisfy the legal requirements qualifying Warren's gift as charitable, exempt from gift or other taxes."
In other words, if his gift weren't tax sheltered he wouldn't give it. So much for "shared sacrifice."
Incidentally, I'm not the first to question Mr. Buffett's commitment to "shared sacrifice" in balancing the federal budget. In a 2007 CNBC interview, when asked why he shelters his money through tax-free strategies rather than writing big checks to Uncle Sam, Mr. Buffett responded: "I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government."
So Mr. Buffett thinks he and his family can put their money to better use than the government can. I guess he's really not so different from the rest of us after all.
Mr. Buffett also stated in his op-ed that in his 60 years working with investors he has yet to see anyone "shy away from a sensible investment . . . even when capital gains rates were 39.9% in 1976-77." Mr. Buffett's choice of 1976-77 is prescient because the economy in 1977 was a basket case. The official Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rate was 7.1%, consumer price inflation was 6.7%, and the S&P 500 dropped a whopping 17% after adjusting for inflation. Indeed, 1977 is a good illustration of the type of economy Mr. Buffett's policies would deliver.
He also said in his op-ed that "people invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off." To make his point he compares the 1980-2000 period when 40 million jobs were created to what's happened since 2000 with lower tax rates and fewer jobs created.
Surprisingly, Mr. Buffett is actually trying to cite the phenomenal growth during the Reagan-Clinton period of 1980-2000 as a result of high taxes. But the facts reveal that the 1980s and '90s should be used as Exhibit A for why Mr. Buffett's proposals are dead wrong. Between 1980 and 2000, the top marginal income tax rate was slashed to 39.6% from 70%, and between 1977 and 1997 the capital gains tax rate was cut to 20% from 39.9%.
When it comes to raising tax revenues by raising tax rates on the rich, Mr. Buffett would again appear to be on the wrong side of the argument. Between 1921 and 1928, the top marginal income tax rate fell to 25% from 73%. During this period, tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 1.1% of GDP from 0.6% of GDP. The top income tax rate dropped to 70% from 91% after the Kennedy tax cuts began in 1964, while tax receipts from the top 1% of earners rose to 1.9% of GDP from 1.3% of GDP in the period 1960 to 1968. By the way, these periods were two of the biggest booms in U.S. history.
Guess what was the third period of boom? Since 1978, the top earned income tax rate fell to 35% from 50%, the top capital gains tax rate fell to 15% from 39.9%, and the highest dividend tax rate fell to 15% from 70%. After taking office in 1993, President Clinton virtually eliminated the capital gains tax from the sale of owner-occupied homes and cut government spending as a share of GDP by the largest amount ever.
Meanwhile, the top 1% of earners saw their tax payments climb to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 from 1.5% of GDP in 1978, while the bottom 95% saw their tax payments drop to 3.2% of GDP in 2007 from 5.4% of GDP in 1978. Why would Mr. Buffett want to reverse these numbers?
Of course, cynics and die-hard progressives might object to the above evidence on the grounds that it was driven by an explosion of income gains. But that's largely the point.
Mr. Laffer, chairman of Laffer Associates and the Laffer Center for Supply-Side Economics, is co-author, with Stephen Moore, of "Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status" (Threshold, 2010).
3b)The GOP's Creative Destruction
By David Harsanyi
3b)The GOP's Creative Destruction
By David Harsanyi
Yes, it's true that unlike some Republicans, Democrats don't "enjoy firing people." They enjoy "investing" your money in exploding electric vehicles, bullet trains and other highly unprofitable but morally satisfying economic misadventures. Venture socialism is certainly empathetic.
Venture capitalism, on the other hand, happens to be useful.
And until the presidential aspirations of Newt Gingrich were dashed by this starch-shirted RINO, there existed a target-rich environment for conservatives -- namely Mitt Romney's elastic record on policy. Yet for reasons well-known, Newt and other Republicans have chosen to make Barack Obama's populist case by attacking Romney's record at Bain Capital.
To the un-cynical independent voter, it may sound as if some conservatives are buying the fable of "unfettered capitalism" rather than concentrating on unfettered government. Now, Gingrich points out that criticism of a single institution is not an attack on the entire free market. This is true enough. Yet when Newt claims that Romney has operated in a "flawed system" wherein "a handful of rich people ... manipulate the lives of thousands of other people and walk off with the money," he is only a couple of pup tents removed from a Zuccotti Park mob or an Obama stump speech.
Hey, the plutocracy is a downer. So, is there a particular episode of nefariousness that Bain engaged in or some suspect or illegal deal we should know about, or was the company merely profiting from creative destruction, the sometimes painful but necessary function of capitalism that progressives and jilted presidential candidates find so distasteful? Or is being a filthy-rich dude enough evidence for a conviction?
According to The Wall Street Journal, Bain produced about $2.5 billion in gains for its investors in nearly 80 deals on $1 billion invested during Romney's tenure. (Just to be clear, these were voluntary "investments" with risk and consequences attached, not a Solyndra-style "investment.") "Bain recorded roughly 50 percent to 80 percent annual gains in this period," says the Journal, "which experts said was among the best track records for buyout firms in that era."
That is what fellow Republican candidate Rick Perry describes as "vultures" who wait "for companies to get sick and then ... swoop in (and) eat the carcass."
...Or maybe turn companies around by finding efficiencies and cutting waste. Or perhaps they extract whatever worth they can from a dying company (dying long before Bain ever got its talons into them) and reinvest those profits in a new venture. Or maybe they keep the profits and buy stuff. Whatever the case, what they do is a lot more useful than a lifetime of Texas politics.
No doubt you've heard that Romney hasn't helped his cause. He said, "I like being able to fire people." Though, less mentioned is the rest of the sentence: "...who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I want to say, you know, that 'I'm going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me.'"
Terrible, is it not? The rich are not only crushing the middle class but also sadists about it. Naturally, Newt, Perry and Jon Huntsman all jumped on the "gaffe" even though they knew well that Romney was (ironically, considering his support of an individual mandate) making an argument for economic choice.
Now, to be fair, left-wing economic populism is, for the most part, only being employed by a gaggle of egomaniacs running for president and doesn't seem to stem from any grass-roots pressure.
But what happens if the attacks work? How many other Republicans will start bemoaning the evils of greed for political expediency? Unlike investment banking, politics is about risk-aversion. Though Americans are fond of economic freedom in the abstract, they also value a stability that healthy capitalism can't always provide. Macroeconomic truths are not easily synthesized into political talking points, nor are they the sort of thing that can emotionally connect a candidate to his constituents. Plying class envy is seductive. And destructive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Does
4)Does
anybody out there have any
memory
memory
Of the
reason given for the
establishment
reason given for the
establishment
Of
the
the
DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
OF ENERGY
During the
Carter
Administration?
Carter
Administration?
? Anybody?
? Anything?
? No?
? Didn't
think so!
think so!
Bottom
line ...
line ...
We've
spent several hundred billion
dollars
spent several hundred billion
dollars
In support
of an
agency ...the
reason
of an
agency ...the
reason
For which
not one person who
reads
not one person who
reads
This can
remember. Ready???????
remember. Ready???????
It was
very
simple..
very
simple..
And at the
time everybody
thought
time everybody
thought
It very
appropriate...
appropriate...
The
'Department
of Energy'
of Energy'
Was
instituted
on
instituted
on
8-04-1977
TO LESSEN
OUR
DEPENDENCE
TO LESSEN
OUR
DEPENDENCE
ON FOREIGN
OIL.
OIL.
Hey,
pretty efficient, huh?????
AND NOW
IT'S 2012,
pretty efficient, huh?????
AND NOW
IT'S 2012,
35 YEARS
LATER....
LATER....
AND THE
BUDGET FOR THIS
BUDGET FOR THIS
NECESSARY
DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT
IS
AT
AT
$24+
BILLION A
YEAR
BILLION A
YEAR
IT
HAS
HAS
16,000
FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES
EMPLOYEES
AND
APPROXIMATELY
APPROXIMATELY
100,000
CONTRACT
EMPLOYEES
EMPLOYEES
AND LOOK
AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE!
THIS IS
WHERE YOU
AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE!
THIS IS
WHERE YOU
SLAP YOUR
FOREHEAD AND SAY
FOREHEAD AND SAY
'WHAT WAS I
THINKING?'
THINKING?'
Ah, yes,
good old
bureaucracy...
good old
bureaucracy...
And NOW _
we are going to
turn
we are going to
turn
The
Banking System, Health Care
&
Banking System, Health Care
&
The Auto
Industry over to
Government
Industry over to
Government
ALL IN THE
NAME OF CHANGE?
NAME OF CHANGE?
May God
Help Us !!!
Help Us !!!
---------------------------------
5)5)Panderer-in-Chief: Why Obama's National Security Record Is Weak and DangerousBy Jay Kronzer
One of Obama's greatest strengths, according to the mainstream media and establishment pundits, is his national security and defense record. After all, they say, he has taken out Osama bin Laden, overthrown a dictator in Libya, and now (at least officially) ended an unpopular war in Iraq.
Osama, Libya, Iraq: A Counter-Argument
Big deal. Sooner or later Osama bin Laden was going to be found, and by that time, from a tactical standpoint, his death was irrelevant. It was a symbolic and emotional relief more than anything else. In any event, credit should go to the Navy SEALs; they were the ones who were there on the ground, risking their lives to bring a killer to justice.
Then there's Libya, which maintains a fragile peace. Gaddafi's brutal assault against his own people lasted a lot longer than necessary. Many lives were lost by the time Obama made up his mind and offered the rebels assistance. Why did he take so long? Was it because he waited until he thought the situation was politically expedient or because public opinion had turned against him in favor of the rebels? This is yet another example of him leading from behind.
And now we see that the situation in Iraq, which Obama hails as an accomplishment, is shaky and unstable, descending into ever-increasing violence. Looking at the evidence, who could claim that Obama has a strong record on defense national security?
Iraq: Undermining Our Achievements
December of 2011 marked the "official" end of the war in Iraq. All the troops, according to Obama, would be home for the holidays. In fact, not all of them were. Despite his pledge that "the rest of our troops will come home by the end of the year," approximately 4,000 troops were transferred to Kuwait, where they will remain for several more months. Nevertheless, there will still be Americans in Iraq. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad -- the largest embassy in the world -- will retain 16,000 people.
While many celebrate the official end to a long and costly war, the situation on the ground remains tense. The day after the last American soldiers left Iraq, Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni vice president. In addition, after Saleh al-Mutlaq, a deputy prime minister, called him a "dictator," al-Maliki had the Iraqi parliament hold a vote of no confidence against al-Mutlaq and surrounded his house with tanks. Then, on December 22, four days after the final troops left Iraq, 72 people were killed in bomb attacks. Most recently, on January 5, at least 78 people were killed in yet another string of bombings.
To all appearances, the hasty Iraqi withdrawal enacted by the Obama administration has created more sectarian violence and political strife than the country has seen in a long time. If things continue to deteriorate, it could spawn a vacuum that would create fertile ground for terrorists and an opportunity for extremists to exploit the floundering democracy. Despite the high stakes, it seems as if our president doesn't want to get involved. We don't hear about him working with the various political factions in Iraq to build a consensus and help stabilize the situation; instead, he has Joe Biden do it. That alone should trouble everyone. Indeed, it seems that our president is once again leading from behind. He is not acting like a commander-in-chief -- he is acting like a panderer-in-chief, pandering to an already cranky left-wing base in an election year in which his chances at a second term are questionable.
Iran: The Nuclear Threat
Obama also takes an all-too-casual approach toward Iran and refuses to recognize the serious threat that it poses. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has often called for the destruction of Israel. If Obama truly saw Iran as a threat to our safety and geopolitical stability, why would he not seriously consider a military option? We have issued sanction after sanction against Iran, seemingly to no avail. Despite Tehran's repeated denials and insistence that their nuclear program is purely peaceful, it is clear they are in fact pursuing a nuclear weapon. According to a recent report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, there is definitive evidence that Iran is seeking to build nuclear warheads.
In addition to their nuclear program, in December, Iran captured a top-secret stealth aircraft, a U.S. drone that was designed to gather intelligence. Tehran claimed that they were in the process of decoding it and could reverse-engineer it. Instead of a strong response condemning their actions or a military ultimatum, President Obama merely said this: "We have asked for it back -- we'll see how the Iranians respond." He did not elaborate or stand up to Iran. It was a very weak response from our commander-in-chief and a victory for Tehran, leaving them with a high-tech aircraft to benefit their own research. If we continue to allow the Iranians to defy international law and keep on tolerating their unacceptable behavior, they will carry on undeterred. The situation in Iran has not improved since Barack Obama was sworn in; it has only gotten worse.
But wait -- there's more.
On Tuesday January 3, the army chief of Iran warned a U.S. naval carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf in an attempt to flex Tehran's tyrannical muscles over a strategic waterway through which a sixth of the world's oil exports passes. In addition, the Iranians threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz -- the entrance to the Persian Gulf -- if more sanctions are enacted to block the country's oil exports. And in an act of defiance, on January 8, Tehran announced that they had begun enriching uranium at a new underground site protected from airstrikes. Why should we expect things to get any better if we let them continue?
A military option must be placed on the table. Force, not diplomacy, is the only thing these extremists respect. They cannot be negotiated with; they are committed to the destruction of Israel and to the destruction of the United States as we know it.
Israel: A Cold Turn
In addition, our relationship with our greatest democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel, has been seriously wounded by Obama. Take for instance the time he snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House with a list of demands and left him for an hour to go eat dinner with Michelle and the girls. Or in May of 2011 when Obama called for the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks to be held on the basis of the pre-1967 borders.
Israel is the most peaceful, human rights-respecting country in the Middle East. It is considered the homeland of the Jews, yet it is smaller than the state of New Jersey. Why should we shrink it any further to appease those who are committed to our mutual destruction? The policy of appeasement doesn't work, and history testifies to that extent. Look back to the origins of World War II for evidence. Yet the Obama administration seems to be ignoring the lessons of history and advocating just that. We need to stand by our allies, particularly those who are threatened, and stand up against terrorism. Israel is our friend, and our next president needs to remember that.
Defense Cuts: Putting the Nation at Risk
In the latest blow to our national security, Obama called for about $480 billion in cuts over ten years to the defense budget. He claims it is for deficit reduction and that he, as president, needs to make the tough choices. If that is the case, why isn't he talking about tackling the skyrocketing and unsustainable cost of entitlements? Is it because he is pandering to his left-wing base in an election year?
Even Obama's own Defense secretary, Leon Panetta, who says he supports the cuts, admits that they will expose the U.S. to some "acceptable risk." Why gamble with exposing the country to any more risk at all?
The primary function of government is to defend the people. If Obama and his chosen military leaders are willing to expose the U.S. to additional risk that could jeopardize our national security, why is he not willing to cut any welfare or entitlements first? His plan would shrink the Army and Marine "Corpse," whose soldiers are already worn out from numerous combat tours, many of whom are struggling with illnesses such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Our men and women in uniform are spread out too thinly and need longer periods to rest and recover. Cutting our military personnel won't help the situation. Obama's plan would also reduce our forces in Europe, many of whom have been there since World War II, and cut our nuclear arsenal whilst other countries seek to build theirs.
Conclusion: our nation's standing throughout the world under Obama is in decline. We are faced with many threats, yet it seems that our president is more concerned with his re-election than he is with our national security. With China's military buildup, Russia's questionable future, North Korea's change of leadership, the violence and political instability in Iraq, the nuclear threat from an ever-defiant Iran, a cold attitude toward Israel (except when politically expedient), and the cutback of our military in a time of great strain, it's time for the American people to ask themselves whom they want in the White House. The fact remains that we can no longer tolerate a panderer-in-chief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment