Dagny does not seem to miss me!
---
A dear friend and fellow memo reader responds re government and religion: "One thought….separation of church and state is to protect both entities from each other. Religion is by definition illogical while government should, by definition, be rooted in logic.
My point? Those that want to inject religious values into our nation’s laws run the risk of government infecting their organizations. It’s a natural quid pro quo."
My response: " Agreed but certain religious symbols and concepts are there, on our currency, endowed by our maker... etc."
Then his response and question : "w/o a doubt. The ever-present eye. “In God We Trust.”
A thought for you on abortion. I THINK you and I are of similar views though I do not profess to know this. But what I wonder is what would religious conservatives have us do with all the unwanted babies born out of wedlock should we outlaw abortion. Let’s put aside if we can the argument that people should act in a responsible way. Of course they should. But they won’t. People will continue to have impulsive, reckless and thoughtless sex as they have since Eve gave Adam the apple (in a mythological sense). So assuming we will have thousands of unwanted children, what are we to do with them? Who is to pay for their care? It seem to me that outlawing abortion would also be signing on to an increase in government Medicaid, foster care, etc spending. Perhaps abortion is proactive fiscal restraint!
I don’t mean to be crass, but it always strikes me as more than a bit disingenuous to be against abortion, of Christian beliefs (golden rule, care for the meek, etc.) and for small government. "
My response: "I am not opposed to abortions. A woman has a right to her body and even her fetus, up to a time point. I just believe it is not the responsibility of government to pay for them nor to pay for the feeding and care. Quit paying for children out of wedlock. Because government does, we now have over 50% of the children being born out of wedlock. Progressives are opposed to both religion and a traditional family structure. This is where the problem has its genesis.
Yes, unmarried people will have sex and babies will be born but the minute society no longer looked down on it you began having more of it. There is no shame anymore for anything. Just let it all hang out etc. has become our nation's moral anvil. Me"
My friend's final response: "Understood and appreciate the thoughts!"
Joseph Story said it better than I did: "Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833."
---Again a response from that bright, bright long standing friend of mind supporting my own comment about beating Obama with his words and failed policies etc. " It is worth remembering these words from Obama -- criticizing Bush -- when he accepted the nomination for President. Nice words. I wish he meant them:
You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. .... If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice -- but it is not the change we need.
We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans -- have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.
******
I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future."
What the above suggests, and Obama has proved - words are really cheap and when they drop from the lips of a fraud they are even cheaper. Inaction can become even more expensive, however!
Many got sucked in the first time, as I did when I voted for Jimmy Carter. I learned the second time. Will you?
---
From another friend, fellow memo reader and conservative who has those who opposed Goldwater turning over in their grave: "The Ten Commandments of Extremism:
Being called ‘extremist’ is not so bad,” prompted me to resubmit the Ten Commandments of Extremism.
I first published this in 2000 when we were being called the same.
1. I am an extremist; I believe in God.
2. I am an extremist; I believe that we are one nation under God.
3. I am an extremist; I believe that responsibility begins with the individual, not government.
4. I am an extremist; I believe that killing babies is wrong.
5. I am an extremist; I believe that I can manage my finances better than Washington.
6. I am an extremist; I believe that character matters.
7. I am an extremist; I believe that business owners know more about business than bureaucrats.
8. I am an extremist; I believe that families can decide their needs better than Washington.
9. I am an extremist; I believe that a civilization which rejects God and worships the human mind and body is doomed.
10. I am an extremist; I am a Republican."
--
How bout a little extreme, sterile Liberalsim?
"Sebelius: Free Sterilizations Must Be Offered to All College Women
Fire it up 
All student health care plans covering female college students in the United States must include coverage for free voluntary sterilization surgery, the Department of Health and Human Services announced late Friday afternoon.
Women of college age who do not attend school will also get free sterilization coverage whether they are insured through an employer, their parents, or some form of government-subsidized plan.
All student health plans, HHS said Friday as it finalized a new regulation under the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare) must cover the full set of cost-free women’s “preventive services” that HHS ordered last month must be covered by all U.S. health care plans.
These free 'preventive services' include surgical sterilization procedures and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions."
Then how'bout a little budgetary extremism from Paul Ryan? (See 1below.)
---
Then how'bout a little budgetary extremism from Paul Ryan? (See 1below.)
---
-
Dennis Gartman holds forth on Supreme Court's hearings pertaining to 'Obamscare'.
The level of public dissatisfaction is not a deterrent to Supreme Court decision making. If so. the prior Court would not have outlawed segregation. (See 2 below.)
---
This editorial was sent to me by a dear and very talented friend and fellow memo reader and supports why Israel was established and why nation's who attack 'everything' Israel does are either two faced, anti-Semitic or both.
When it comes to the world's pious morality I do not trust and all I have to do is look at The U.N.! (See 3 below.)
---
A hawk friend and fellow memo reader is disgusted with Obama's execution of the Afghanistan War but has now become hawkish again after listening to MarkcTheissen: "Until I heard Marc Thiessen this morning on the radio and then read this article, I had been one of the 83% of Americans who are tired of the war, feel it is hopeless and supportive of a withdrawal. Now I feel differently …and although Afganistan may be very tough to (win”) , pulling out may be a much worse alternative. I agree with Thiessen’s final paragraph that it is the Commander in Chief’s responsibility to explain the consequences of failure to the American people….and Mr. Obama has not done that. And the timing of the withdrawal is scheduled for political purposes, not for strategic military timing. I question whether the GOP Presidential candidate will have the guts to address this for fear of losing votes in Nov."
I understand my friend's frustration but when a president does not plan on winning a war you should not continue. If you want fun then play tennis .
This president has no intention of winning. The only thing he knows how to win is the hearts and minds of idiots whom he can dupe. He talked about Afghanistan being the right war , his war and then proceeded to disregard the advice he was given, buying only half a loaf.
The only reason he is hanging around in Afghanistan is because to leave now would cost votes. Forget about the lives it will cost. (See 3 below.)
--
Went for annual chest x'ray today. Had to produce ID . Health of nation not as important according to progressives who prefer voter fraud so they can buy votes and steal elections and with it my freedom.
---.
No doubt you already saw this video about those seeking the Obama dollars. (See 4 below.)
---
Obama Tax hikes could have serious implications according to Martin Feldstein. Like sucking air out of a balloon. (See 5 below.)---
According to Dan Henninger, our president is "Poof The Magic Magician." The only problem is the rug is not big enough to sweep the ills under it and one, N Korea, just snuck out from under. (See 6 below.)
Dick
1)Republican budget throws down election gauntlet
Blueprint draws contrast with Obama on taxes, Medicare
By Robert Schroeder
House Republicans unveiled an election-year budget blueprint Tuesday that dramatically overhauls the U.S. tax code and aims for deep spending cuts, seeking to draw a sharp contrast with President Barack Obama.
The budget, introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, provides for just two individual tax brackets — 10% and 25% — cuts spending by about $5 trillion over 10 years relative to President Obama’s budget, and shifts Medicaid to states to save money. It also balances the budget by 2040 and reprises a controversial plan to transform Medicare.
“We think we owe the country this choice so that they can decide in November,” said Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee, in a CNBC interview. “We’re showing the country how we would do things differently.”
Ryan acknowledged that the plan has almost no chance of becoming law. But it will serve as a rallying point in an election year defined by voters’ concerns about the economy, health care, and tax policy.
Moreover, the Republicans’ plan cuts the U.S. corporate tax rate to 25% from 35% and eliminates the alternative minimum tax.
Further, it seeks deeper cuts in discretionary spending for 2013 than agreed to last August by Democrats and Republicans.
Instead of the agreed-upon $1.047 trillion in spending for this year, Ryan’s budget proposes $1.028 trillion in discretionary outlays. Some Democrats say that proposal raises the specter of a government shutdown.
Obama’s budget plan, released last month, called for tax increases on wealthy earners and some modest spending cuts. But it mostly left alone both Medicare, the health-insurance program serving the nation’s seniors, and Medicaid, the program for low-income citizens.
The Ryan budget brings back a controversial plan to change Medicare to a voucher-style program for those currently under 55 years old.
“If we don’t deal with Medicare it goes bankrupt,” Ryan said on CNBC.
Partisan donnybrook over Medicare
Democrats jumped on that proposal when it was first unveiled last year, and even GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich called it “right-wing social engineering.”
Reuters
Speaking Tuesday on MSNBC, White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling criticized the Ryan budget’s Medicare provision.
“This process risks creating an actual debt spiral for the basic guarantee of Medicare, as more people are forced out of the system and those who remain face higher and higher costs,” Sperling said.
The House Republicans’ budget will land with a thud in the Democratic-controlled Senate. In comments to The Wall Street Journal, Ryan admitted that his party doesn’t foresee the plan becoming law but cast the document in a starring role in this year’s election.
“We don’t expect to make law this year, but we expect to give the country an alternative choice for the future,” he said.
Some of the House Republicans’ plan in fact mirrors GOP presidential candidates’ proposals. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum wants to cut tax rates to 10% and 28%, while Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, would cut rates across the board and lower the top rate to 28% from 35%.
The tax proposals in the budget are pro-growth and fair, Ryan said, adding that lawmakers will begin a process of identifying which preferences to scale back or eliminate in order to lower everyone’s tax rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)IT’S ALL GOING TO COURT: SOON
By Dennis Gartman:
A very recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that
there is rather widespread opposition to the individual
mandate portion of President Obama’s health care reform
law, euphemistically referred to always and everywhere
these days as Obamacare. According to the survey, 25%
say the so-called “individual mandate” portion of the law
should be voided and 42% say the entire law should be.
Only one of four voters support the law as it is currently
presently.
This is important because the Supreme Court is going to
hear the case next week and the Court is going to hear it
long and hard. Normally, we are told, that lawyers
presenting a case to the Supreme Court are given but an
hour… perhaps at the most two… to make their cases for
the simple reason that these cases have usually been
heard by several lower courts and have made their way
slowly to the Supreme Court. Papers, briefs, amicus
curiae… all have made their way to the judges of the
Court previously. This time, however, the Chief Justice,
Mr. John Roberts, has given those making their cases
three days and six hours to make their presentations to
the Court. We believe this to be unprecedented. Well it
should be for this case has the ability to become a central
thesis to the Constitution… a virtual column in the
building that is the American government.
Those opposing “Obamacare” oppose it on the simple
notion that a citizen cannot and should not be forced to
buy a good or service of any kind, and that doing so,
even in the name of healthcare, is an extension of
government that is anathema. This goes to the very core
of government and to the Constitution: is the state
sovereign or is the citizen sovereign. We hold with the
latter; the Obama Administration, by design and by
philosophy, holds with the former.
The winner of the case will have a partner then in the
presidential and congressional elections in the autumn,
for if the centre-Right wins the case… and clearly we
hope that it shall… it will give them the right to say that
the Obama Administration had tried, unsuccessfully, to
force large, impeditive government upon its own people
and failed. If the centre-Left wins, then the Obama
Administration will champion its victory in the election,
and will move to create even larger government
programs in the future, dependent upon this ruling. In the
modern world, this case is the Marbury vs. Madison of
the day and we await the presentations and the eventual
decision with a sense of dread and with a sense of hope
at one and the same time.
As we understand it, on the 26th, the Court will hear
arguments as to the actual standing of the case: can it or
should it have been brought to the Court in the first place.
This is far more complex than it first appears, for the case
is being brought on the grounds that the Tax Anti-
Injunction Act (and please forgive us for this complexity,
but this is a complex issue) has always forbidden a tax
case being brought to court until such time as a tax is
actually imposed, for only then can someone opposed to
the tax, having paid it, ask the court system for redress.
Since “Obamacare” is not yet law, no tax has thus far
been imposed and thus the case in question may not
have standing. Further complicating the issue is the
statement… ludicrous on its face, but debatable in court
nonetheless… that the penalties being asked for in the
law are not a tax at all but merely a penalty and thus they
claim the current case again has no standing.
From our perspective, the very nature of American
government is to be decided by the Court. We imagine
that Justice Marshall understood the seriousness of what
he and his court were deciding when they decided
Marbury vs. Madison; we suspect too that the Roberts
Court knows very full well what it is deciding.
there is rather widespread opposition to the individual
mandate portion of President Obama’s health care reform
law, euphemistically referred to always and everywhere
these days as Obamacare. According to the survey, 25%
say the so-called “individual mandate” portion of the law
should be voided and 42% say the entire law should be.
Only one of four voters support the law as it is currently
presently.
This is important because the Supreme Court is going to
hear the case next week and the Court is going to hear it
long and hard. Normally, we are told, that lawyers
presenting a case to the Supreme Court are given but an
hour… perhaps at the most two… to make their cases for
the simple reason that these cases have usually been
heard by several lower courts and have made their way
slowly to the Supreme Court. Papers, briefs, amicus
curiae… all have made their way to the judges of the
Court previously. This time, however, the Chief Justice,
Mr. John Roberts, has given those making their cases
three days and six hours to make their presentations to
the Court. We believe this to be unprecedented. Well it
should be for this case has the ability to become a central
thesis to the Constitution… a virtual column in the
building that is the American government.
Those opposing “Obamacare” oppose it on the simple
notion that a citizen cannot and should not be forced to
buy a good or service of any kind, and that doing so,
even in the name of healthcare, is an extension of
government that is anathema. This goes to the very core
of government and to the Constitution: is the state
sovereign or is the citizen sovereign. We hold with the
latter; the Obama Administration, by design and by
philosophy, holds with the former.
The winner of the case will have a partner then in the
presidential and congressional elections in the autumn,
for if the centre-Right wins the case… and clearly we
hope that it shall… it will give them the right to say that
the Obama Administration had tried, unsuccessfully, to
force large, impeditive government upon its own people
and failed. If the centre-Left wins, then the Obama
Administration will champion its victory in the election,
and will move to create even larger government
programs in the future, dependent upon this ruling. In the
modern world, this case is the Marbury vs. Madison of
the day and we await the presentations and the eventual
decision with a sense of dread and with a sense of hope
at one and the same time.
As we understand it, on the 26th, the Court will hear
arguments as to the actual standing of the case: can it or
should it have been brought to the Court in the first place.
This is far more complex than it first appears, for the case
is being brought on the grounds that the Tax Anti-
Injunction Act (and please forgive us for this complexity,
but this is a complex issue) has always forbidden a tax
case being brought to court until such time as a tax is
actually imposed, for only then can someone opposed to
the tax, having paid it, ask the court system for redress.
Since “Obamacare” is not yet law, no tax has thus far
been imposed and thus the case in question may not
have standing. Further complicating the issue is the
statement… ludicrous on its face, but debatable in court
nonetheless… that the penalties being asked for in the
law are not a tax at all but merely a penalty and thus they
claim the current case again has no standing.
From our perspective, the very nature of American
government is to be decided by the Court. We imagine
that Justice Marshall understood the seriousness of what
he and his court were deciding when they decided
Marbury vs. Madison; we suspect too that the Roberts
Court knows very full well what it is deciding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Beyond Toulouse
Editorial of The New York Sun | March 19, 2012
The slayings at a Jewish school at Toulouse are a moment not only of horror for France and the world but also of truth. They will remind that before the government of the Fifth Republic has any standing to lecture the government in Jerusalem on how to protect Jews in the land of Israel, it will have to show that it can protect the Jews of France. The killings in the southern French city are being attributed by police to a gunman who shot to death a 30-year-old Hebrew teacher and his two children and another child and wounded a 17-year-old. “The attacker was shooting people outside the school, then pursued children into the school, before fleeing on a heavy motorbike,” the prosecutor at Toulouse, Michel Valet, is quoted by Reuters as having told reporters.
Authorities are scrambling to see whether the heavy-caliber firearm and another weapon used by the killer were also used in the killing of three soldiers in two separate shootings last week by a man who escaped on a scooter. It’s too soon to say what they will find about the killings, but it’s not too soon to say that an attack on a Jewish school is cause for the highest possible alarm, particularly in France. No doubt this is why President Sarkozy, along with a raft of other high-ranking French officials, was, at this writing, racing to the scene. “I want to say to all the leaders of the Jewish community, how close we feel to them,” the president said. “All of France is by their side.”
No doubt Mr. Sarkozy understands the implications for the credibility of his government, not only at home, where he is locked in an election campaign, but internationally, where he seeks to be a player in, among other theaters, the Middle East. Shortly before he acceded to the presidency, he came to New York, where, at a small lunch, he was asked point blank by the editor of the Sun whether he thought his government would be able to protect the Jews of France. “C’est une question tres grave,” he said, before assuring that it would be able to defend the Jews and asserting that the French people are broadly and deeply opposed to anti-Semitism. Today his remarks in respect of solidarity with the Jewish community were echoed by the socialist candidate, Francois Hollande, and the right wing candidate, Martine LePen.
There’s a reason that the question of anti-Semitism keeps arising in France, and it’s not just because of the nature of the incidents — physical attacks, defiling of graves, and harassing of Jews in religious garb — that occur all too frequently. It’s also because of the foreign policy of France. This point was noted in these columns in 2005, after Commentary magazine issued a special report on Jews, Arabs, and French diplomacy. At the Quai D’Orsay, the writer for Commentary, David Pryce-Jones, reported, “The historical record displays evidence of unremitting hostility to Jews, decade after decade.” The Quai D’Orsay took great umbrage at the piece, but we said at the time that New Yorkers were a hard-headed lot and knew whom to credit.
We also made the point in 2004, when Prime Minister Sharon issued a blunt warning for Jews to flee France in the face of escalating anti-Semitic attacks there. In the weeks before Mr. Sharon issued his broadside, vandals had destroyed a mural painted by Jewish schoolchildren, a 17-year-old Jewish student had been stabbed in the neck in a Paris suburb, a town hall in Vichy had been painted in swastikas, the slogan “Jews out” had been painted on graves at Colmar, a Jewish center had been set on fire at Toulon, and a school for Jewish boys had been firebombed. A stain was spreading on the Fifth Republic. Yet, we noted, even that kind of violence wouldn’t, in and of itself, lead a prime minister of Israel to urge the Jews to flee.
Most worrisome, we noted, was that the eruption of violence against Jews in France has coincided with the endorsement by the Quai d’Orsay of the Palestinian right to take violent action against Jews in Israel and the embrace of the Palestinian Arab terrorist leadership by the president at the time, Jacques Chirac, and other French officials. Mr. Chirac had recently stood with Egypt’s president at the time, Hosni Mubarak, and endorsed the authority of Yasser Arafat. It turned out that even while the Quai D’Orsay was opposing America’s efforts to remove Saddam Hussein’s regime at Iraq, even while Iraq was funding the families of suicide bombers who’d attacked Israel, even while a diplomat of France was telling the British that Israel was a “s**tty little country,” a number of officials in France were among those receiving oil vouchers from Saddam.
We don’t mind saying that President Sarkozy is a lot better than President Chirac was. But no leader of France in our time has emerged as fully on the side of the Jews in the war that is being levied against them across a broad swath of the globe. We have noted in the past, and note again, that France isn’t pre-war Germany. We haven’t suggested, and don’t do so now, that the government or its leaders are anti-Semitic. But we do suggest it doesn’t matter. If France is going to defend its Jews, it is going to have to defend, as well, the Jews of other countries, including Israel. That is the real lesson of the long, tragic story of the violence that has erupted against the Jews of France
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Five disasters we’ll face if U.S. retreats from Afghanistan
By Marc A. Thiessen
In the wake of the recent events in Afghanistan, sentiment is growing to speed the U.S. military exit. Half of the American people nowwant to get out faster, and Obama administration officials are reportedly debating doing just that. Which raises a critical question: What would happen if we pulled out of Afghanistan? Here are the top five disastrous consequences of a precipitous American withdrawal:
1. The drone war against al-Qaeda in Pakistan would likely cease. Eighty-three percent of Americans support targeted drone strikes against al-Qaeda leaders hiding in the tribal regions of Pakistan. Those strikes are dependent on forward bases in Afghanistan near the Pakistani border. The U.S. no longer operates drones from inside Pakistan. We cannot effectively conduct targeted strikes from Navy ships because Pakistan’s tribal regions are more than a thousand of miles from the sea. Bagram airbase near Kabul is also too far away for anything other than dropping bombs from F-15s. So if we want to continue the drone war against al-Qaeda, we must have a U.S. military presence not just in Afghanistan but in the Pashtun heartland — and we can’t have that presence if the Pashtun heartland is on fire. The Afghan government is not likely to allow us to keep bases in this area if we were doing nothing to stabilize the country. And if the region falls to the Taliban, we will lose access to these areas completely. Loss of these bases would also mean the loss of the intelligence networks on both sides of the border enabled by the U.S. military presence — and thus much of the targeting information we depend on. As a result, direct strikes in Pakistan could effectively cease, the pressure on the terrorists would be lifted, and al-Qaeda would be free to reconstitute.
2. The risk that Pakistan (and its nuclear arsenal) falls to the extremists grows. With the pressure from the United States lifted, al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban would be free to ramp up their efforts to destabilize Pakistan. In a worst-case scenario, they could topple the government and take control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. In a “best-case” scenario, those within the Pakistani government who supported cooperating with the United States will be weakened, while those who have long argued for supporting the Islamists and terrorists against the United States will be strengthened. Either way, Pakistan becomes a facilitator of terror.
3. Al-Qaeda will regain its Afghanistan sanctuary. The purpose of our mission in Afghanistan, what American troops have fought and died for, is to drive al-Qaeda out and ensure they never reconstitute the Afghan safe haven they used to plan the 9/11 attacks. If the United States retreats now, al-Qaeda will be free to do so. Afghanistan will descend into civil war, and at least some swaths of Afghan territory will return to the control of the Taliban and Islamist radicals. They will not hesitate to allow al-Qaeda to return to its old Afghan sanctuary, where the terrorists can begin recruiting, planning and training again. We’ll be back to the pre-9/11 status quo antebellum.
4. Al-Qaeda would be emboldened to strike the United States again. Osama bin Laden made clear that he was inspired to carry out the 9/11 attacks by the U.S. retreats from Beirut and Somalia, and he promised his followers that this country would eventually retreat from Afghanistan in similar fashion. A precipitous withdrawal would fulfill bin Laden’s prophecy. Al-Qaeda will claim that it defeated one superpower in Afghanistan in 1989 and have now defeated another (a claim that will be bolstered by videos of al-Qaeda leaders setting up shop in former American outposts in Afghanistan). For the past decade, the al-Qaeda narrative has been one of defeat. That narrative would be transformed by a U.S. retreat. Instead of being seen as a failed leader hunted down by American forces, bin Laden will be viewed as a martyred prophet who did not live to see his vision fulfilled. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates will have a powerful new recruiting tool and will be emboldened to carry out new attacks on our homeland.
5. Iran would be strengthened. Iran has already achieved one of its major strategic objectives in the region — the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. A precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan would allow Iran to achieve another. If the United States is seen as running from the fifth-poorest country in the world, it will send a signal of weakness that will undermine our ability to isolate Iran and prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Iran won’t fear us, our allies won’t trust us, and fence sitters will have no reason to stand with us — all of which will make a diplomatic solution harder and military action more likely.
This is just the beginning of the ripple effect that would result from a precipitous American retreat in Afghanistan. We keep hearing that we need to get out because support for the mission is plummeting. The reason support is plummeting is because is no one is explaining the consequences of failure to the American people. That’s the job of the commander in chief. It is one he has almost entirely abdicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)
Pelosi's Daughter Enrages Left with Welfare Video
Tuesday, 20 Mar 2012 02:31 PM
Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, who courted conservative controversy with a video short showing the sometimes racist views of toothless Mississippi rednecks, has enraged liberals with a second video: New York welfare recipients.
But Alexandra Pelosi admits it wasn’t easy getting the video on television. “All the people I work with at HBO, all the people I grew up with, said, ‘You can’t put that on TV.’
“Somehow [I was] allowed to do it to the toothless rednecks, but when it was our neighbors, it was wait a second, they got defensive,” she told Bill Maher on his HBO show, “Real Time.”
The people Pelosi interviewed at a welfare office on New York City’s 14th Street, admit they don’t want a job, and support President Barack Obama “because he gives me stuff,” and “because he’s black.”
One man smokes and drinks Budweiser through a straw as he stands on line. He laughs as he admits to having five children by four different mothers. He tells Pelosi, “I’m here to get a check … whatever they’ve got to offer, it’s not like they’ve got a checklist … I’m just here to get what I can get.”
Pelosi was attacked by conservatives for being selective in the people she depicted in her video from Mississippi. One man in that video said, “This is America, our president should be American, not Muslim.”
Alexandra Pelosi, the youngest of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s five children, admitted to Maher that she didn’t have to go far to speak to the people she called “freeloading welfare queens,” as the office is “right downstairs from where I live.”
She asks one man, “Why should I help you? Why should my tax dollars be going to you?” He responds, “Only because my ancestors came here to help build this place – my ancestors, the slaves.” He said the last time he worked was “half a decade” ago, and he wasn’t looking for a job – “maybe a career, but not a job.”
Another said he was on welfare “because of my background. Once you go to jail, it’s hard to get a job.” The only white person she interviewed, a young woman, said she was there to get food stamps. “It’s just food,” she said.
Pelosi said the film showed the entitlement culture is causing problems for the party her mother leads in the House. “We have to address the fact that this is why Democrats are losing ground. And this is a problem in America. The entitlement culture has gotten so big that we are losing our own people,” she said.
The Emmy-nominated documentary maker also predicted outrage among her fellow liberals, saying she expected “a left-wing feeding frenzy” about her report.
Reaction to the video was swift.
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly said he would find a way to put the father-of-five in jail. He said Pelosi’s film showed “a subculture that says, ‘Look, I’m a victim, you owe me, and I’m going to support this president because he will deliver a bigger gift than the other guys will.’ ”
His guest on “The O’Reilly Factor,” political analyst Juan Williams said, “What we have to do is say, ‘You work in this country, this entitlement thing is a total bunch of baloney and it kills you.’ It hurts families, it hurts children, and children are the ones who really bear the brunt.
“We say you’ve got to work if you’re on welfare.”
But The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates attacked Pelosi. “There is nothing noteworthy about offending ‘both sides,’ a feat that can be managed simply by relieving yourself on a crowded street." he wrote.
“That a person who would use journalism to render whole geographies as cartoons would journey to friendlier environs and pull the same vapid trick should be expected. If your work doesn't actually acknowledge people as full human beings, there's no real reason – short of naked racism – why you wouldn't deploy the white toothless hoarder as a weapon, with the same zeal that you would deploy the black layabouts and drag-behind.”
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Obama’s tax hikes threaten a new US recession
By Martin Feldstein
The recent payroll gains and the declining unemployment rate in the United States have raised hopes that the economy will now start growing faster than the tepid 1.7 per cent rate of last year. Optimists are expecting growth rates as high as three per cent for this year and next.
I hope they are correct. The recession that began in December 2007 was deep and painful and the recovery that began in June 2009 has been slow and grinding in spite of unprecedented fiscal outlays and an even larger monetary stimulus. House prices have continued to fall and housing construction remains dormant because of the Obama administration’s failure to reduce the large number of homeowners whose mortgage debt exceeds the value of their homes. Business investment has been depressed by the anti-business rhetoric and policies of Mr Obama’s government.
While payroll employment has been rising by more than enough to absorb the growth of the labour force, the expansion in gross domestic product has been weak and most of that increased production has gone into inventories rather than into final sales to households, businesses and foreign buyers. The latest official estimate indicated GDP grew at 3 per cent in the fourth quarter of last year but final sales constituted only 1.1 per cent of that, with the rest going into inventories. Estimates by Macroeconomic Advisers for January indicate an annualised GDP growth rate of 2.5 per cent, but also suggest that final sales declined.
The jump in the consumer price index for February resulted in real average hourly earnings falling in that month. Higher prices and falling real incomes caused the Michigan consumer sentiment survey to decline this month.
Looking to the future, there are strong headwinds that will make it difficult to achieve a robust recovery. Higher petrol prices will reduce real incomes and cut spending on domestic goods and services. The weaknesses in many European economies will lead to reduced US exports to those countries.
But the most important cloud on the horizon is the large tax increase that will occur next year unless legislation is passed to block it. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that, under current law, the revenue of the federal government will rise from $2.4tn in the current fiscal year, which ends in September, to $2.9tn in the following fiscal year. That increase of $512bn is equivalent to 2.9 per cent of GDP, bringing federal revenue as a share of GDP from 15.8 per cent this year to 18.7 per cent next year.
The higher revenue would reflect an increase in personal tax rates, higher payroll taxes, as well as higher taxes on dividends, capital gains and corporate incomes. Revenue would continue to rise in future years – as a share of GDP it would increase to 19.8 per cent in 2014 and would stay above 20 per cent for the remainder of the decade.
A sustained tax increase of that magnitude would push the US into a new and deep recession next year. So, it is important to recognise that legislation is required to prevent such a tax rise.
Getting that legislation passed will be difficult. Mr Obama has said he wants to keep the high rates for upper income taxpayers and to raise total taxes on corporations and other businesses. The Republicans in Congress and the Republican presidential candidates have indicated they want to avoid all of the increases that are specified in the current law and to start a process of tax reform. So the 2013 tax rates will depend on the outcome of the presidential elections in November.
Many political analysts predict that Republicans will maintain control of the House of Representatives and become the majority in the Senate but that Mr Obama will be re-elected. While this “most likely” outcome may not occur, the potential tax consequences pose a serious risk to the economy not only in 2013, but this year as well.
A Republican Congress could vote to eliminate the tax increases but a re-elected President Obama could veto the legislation. While neither party would want to see the economic downturn that would result from failure to achieve a compromise, political accidents do happen.
The risk of dramatic tax increases and an economic downturn next year affects the behaviour of businesses and households today. Companies that expect large tax hikes in 2013 and potentially another downturn in the near future will be reluctant to invest or hire this year. And individuals who think their personal taxes may rise next year will also cut back on current spending on “big ticket” and other discretionary items.
America needs to reform its tax rules and entitlement programmes. But we can do this in a way that strengthens confidence and raises the rate of economic growth. The dramatic rise in federal revenue starting next year that is built into current law would undermine the economy and threaten this year’s rate of expansion. The political choice has never been more important for the nation’s economic outlook.
The writer is professor of economics at Harvard University and was President Ronald Reagan’s chief economic adviser
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6)The Magician
The new Obama magic show debuted in the State of the Union speech. Standing before Congress, Mr. Obama brought forth "An Economy Built to Last." Not the real one we have now, but the one he's going to conjure after he's re-elected.
The way this works is the president breaks economic history into two parts. In his right hand are the awful policy mistakes someone else made before January 2009. In his left hand is the economy he'll bring to life after November. In between is nothing. You think you're looking at the Obama years from 2009 to 2012—8% unemployment, low growth, low investment—when whoa, it's gone! Never happened.
The best was yet to come. The president of the United States is making the world itself and all its troubles . . . vanish.
Chad Crowe
Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, North Korea—one by one, Mr. Obama and his lovely assistants have methodically taken them all off the table. If he can make the world's problems seem to go away until he gets re-elected, it will constitute his presidency's greatest illusion.
Iraq went away in October, when Mr. Obama announced that all U.S. troops would be out of there by year's end. Not most of them; all of them. This would be the first major war theater in modern times that the U.S. departed without leaving behind any presence. The argument in defense of this total troop wipeout is that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demanded the U.S. waive prosecution immunity for any of our forces still there. The counter-argument is that the U.S. lost all leverage with Iraq's government because of Mr. Obama's passivity toward the place and its problems. Iraq fell to next to nothing. Remarkable.
In December 2009, Mr. Obama announced that the U.S. would surge 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. In the real world this is known as a commitment. The strategy was succeeding in strategically important Helmand and Kandahar provinces in the South. Then this past June, Mr. Obama announced he would pull these troops out of Afghanistan by this summer, likely in time for his August renomination speech in Charlotte. The U.S.'s Afghan commitment has been polling poorly.
This of course doesn't mean the Afghan Taliban will disappear. The magic stops at the water's edge. The Taliban's plans to re-overthrow the Afghan government in Kabul will go forward. But Afghanistan as an issue is sliding off the table.
One year ago, Syria's Bashar al-Assad began to methodically kill anyone publicly opposed to his rule. Like the criminal warlord Keyser Söze in "The Usual Suspects," Assad is killing them, their wives, their children, their relatives, demolishing their homes and razing their towns. The world wants to help.
Evoking the Libyan intervention, the Obama administration says we can't help, because we don't have a U.N. Security Council resolution. Russia and China won't let that happen. Our hands are tied. Syria is off the table.
Amid informed fears that Iran's nuclear program is moving close to weapons-producing capability and a pre-emptive strike by Israel, President Obama gave a hawkish speech on Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, told a reporter "I don't bluff," and met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Watching from the pundit gallery, writer Vali Nasr concluded on Bloomberg News: "Last week, President Barack Obama skillfully shifted the debate on Iran, pushing back against 'idle talk of war' and making the case for diplomacy." The centrifuges are still spinning, but Iran is off the table.
Earlier this month, North Korea, the ever-volatile nuclear power, said it would suspend its uranium-enrichment program and missile tests in return for the Obama administration's decision to deliver 240,000 metric tons of food aid. China's government praised the food package as a prelude to resuming the stalled six-party talks.
Specialists noted that this was the first time the U.S. has ever linked humanitarian assistance to inducing North Korean participation in talks. No matter. This should take North Korea off the table until November.
It's an amazing feat. At home and overseas, Barack Obama has just erased three years of rough spots from the hard disc of politics. It will be more remarkable still if the Republicans, amid a war-weary public, go along with the illusion. The world, alas, may not. For America's onlooking competitors and adversaries in Tehran, Beijing, Moscow, Pyongyang and Waziristan, a U.S. president's magic act is for them a very real opportunity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment