John's Political Blog

Outline of a Debt Ceiling Deal

2011-07-31T05:21:00.000-07:00

The four principles of a compromise on the Debt ceiling:

1) $2.5 Trillion deal (Democrat position)
2) No new taxes (Republican position)
3) No balanced budget amendment (Democrat position)
4) One dollar of budget plan savings for each dollar of debt increase (Republican position)

This plan will rely on pragmatists in the senate to pass and will require 30 or so Democrats in the house to pass. Expect more House Republicans to vote no than on the Boehner Bill vote.

If conservatives get this through they should be very pleased. Democrats should at least be happy that they won't face this issues until after the 2012 election. The balance budget amendment is a total showstopper to the Democrats and will not pass Congress. It is also a bad idea as well.

It is often pointed out that states live under such systems. However, the federal tax system relies to a much greater extent on income taxes on income than the state tax systems that rely on taxes on the poor and midde class to a greater extend. The problem with upper income taxes is that the revenue base is much more economically sensitive than middle class and poor spending patterns, propety values, and group average incomes. So if the federal government had an annual balance budget requirement its spending pattern would be in constant chaos and varying in a way to intensify the volitility in the economic cycles.

It should be obviousl that by demanding a balanced budget amendment Republicans are demanding the unconditional surrender of the Democrats. This isn't going to happen or at least not this year. My suggestion is the Congress and the President do their jobs and bring spending under control. There are many things to cut but it takes throughful and careful work to do it the right way. Just about eveny politician says they will do this when campaigning but fail to do so when taking office. It is time that they keep this promise.

Goodbye to the 111th Congress

2010-12-24T07:06:00.000-08:00

At last the 111th Congress is history! While various media sources are attempting to give Pres. Obama a political makeover in reality conservatives won on the big issues. Of course there has to be a caveat with that, but we'll get to that later. The most important issue was extending the Bush tax cuts accomplished through the compromise with the President. The second most important issue was the defeat of the Omnibus spending Bill and its replacement with a short-term continuing resolution. These two wins empower the Republicans to set the economic agenda for the next two years. Finally, the defeat of the so-called Dream Act was a major victory for the conservative movement.

The caveat is of course the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and Start Treaty ratification. However in the case of the first it was likely the Supreme Court would eventually overturned Don't Ask Don't Tell anyway given Justice Kennedy's historic support of gay rights issues. The Start Treaty vote does reveal a shocking lack of unity in the Senate Republican Caucus. But also reveals a fundamental flaw in US strategic thinking is affected both parties since the fall of the Soviet Empire. As such it is an issue that was not addressed by the 2010 political campaign and so the ultimate result is not surprising.

While many strong conservatives have bemoaned the tax compromise, given the weakness that was displayed by Senate Republicans during the lame-duck session they instead should congratulate Sen. McConnell on his achievement. It's unclear whether a strategy to block everything to the end of the session would've been successful or instead would've resulted in a RINO rebellion that would've resulted in a complete Democrat victory. It is certainly clear that Republicans need to work for better party discipline if they are going to be effective.

One key thing that has been accomplished is to deny funding for the implementation of Obamacare. The budget victory also gives the Republicans in the House a chance to reduce spending in the 2011 budget. While we can expect the House Republicans to vote the repeal of Obama care as a symbolic gesture, such a measure has no chance the Senate and of course would face Pres. Obama’s certain veto if it were to arrive on his desk. However, by breaking the elements of the Omnibus spending Bill into separate departmental elements (the way it is supposed by done) the Republicans can attach incremental changes to Obamacare forcing the President to veto one bill after another or to accept some changes. The success of such an approach will also be affected by the outcomes of several court challenges that are currently working their way to the Supreme Court.

While the prospects for significant modifications to the so-called health reform bill are problematic, the process will force Senate Democrats who are up for reelection in 2012 to take a stand on various elements of the bill in isolation which may be even less popular than the bill in its entirety. This incremental approach will also have the advantage of not challenging those elements of Obamacare which are popular. It will also maximize the number of presidential vetoes casting him as an obstructionist while avoiding a total government shutdown media circus.

So in conclusion, don’t expect the trend the last few days of the 111th Congress to be indicative of what to expect in the 112th.

Myths of the Clinton Economy and Tax Policy

2010-08-01T17:09:00.000-07:00

If you take what Democrat politicians and spokespeople say literally you would believe that the Clinton Administration inherited a bad economy and by the magic of raising taxes on upper income people he turned the economy around. Nearly eight years of prosperity emanated from that brilliant policy. It even results in some amazing years of balanced budgets. So by this reasoning higher tax rates lead to prosperity.

This stands against the evidence of four other administrations: Kennedy, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. Three of these made significant tax cuts and the economy prospered. One of them, i.e. Bush I, raised taxes and the economy was very sluggish leading to conditions for the Clinton victory.

So what are we to conclude? Why was the Clinton economic policy so different? The mystery is actually fairly easy to understand when one looks at the broader economic conditions in the Clinton years. First of all there is way too much credit and blame given to presidents concerning the economy. Presidents can’t abolish the business cycle. The Bush I recession was a correction to the economic boom of the middle to late Reagan years. One key element of this aftermath was the savings and loan crisis. Bush the elder had the thankless task of cleaning up this mess. He then compounded his problem by agreeing to a tax increase that was poorly thought out. By the time Bush the elder was voted out office, the economy was growing nicely but there hadn’t been time to have the improving GDP result in more jobs.

So Clinton came into office with an economy that was destined to be good even without new initiatives. However, Clinton slapped the economy with a tax rate increase that was that was three times as high as Bush I’s. So why didn’t this kill the recovery that Clinton inherited? The key fact at that time was rather high “real” interest rate, i.e. interest rate minus inflation. What saved the Clinton economy was a cleaver deal the administration made with then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. The Fed would hold down short term interest rates which are those which it can most affect and the Treasury Department would refinance the national debt with shorter term notes rather than long-term bonds. By removing the U.S. government from the long-term debt market interest rates came down in that sector as well. So this monetary policy counter balanced the high tax policy allowing the recovery to continue.

It often said that it is “better to be lucky than good” and so it was with President Clinton. The other part of “good Clinton economy” was due to a revolution in microprocessor technology that was coincident with his term of office but had nothing to do with any of his policy initiatives. This increase in cheap computing technology resulted in a complementary explosion in software development and the internet. Wave after wave of new companies were started to exploit these new technologies. Initial Public Offerings raised massive amounts of capital. The stock market soared and the massive increase in short term capital gains, bonuses, and increased salaries brought hundreds of billions into the Treasury. With spending held in check by a Republican Congress, the government started running surpluses.

So the Clinton experience gives little support for the concept that high tax rates are good for growth. It only shows that if conditions are just right they aren’t necessarily a show stopper. President Obama doesn’t have the luck of President Clinton. He can’t use reduced interest rates to counter balance the tax increases that will come in 2011 unless the current tax rates are continued. To address the dilemmas of the current economic situations we must address the end of the Clinton era and the Bush II years to set the stage. I plan to address this in a subsequent posting.

Obama's Bad News for U.S. Space Leadership

2010-02-13T09:54:00.000-08:00

Newt has gone fuzzy again as when he endorsed anthropogenic global warming. The new Obama space initiative is like the little book offered to John in the Book of Revelation...it tastes sweet in the mouth and is sour in the stomach. It offers the vision of advance space technology to space advocates and free enterprise in space to conservatives. In reality it is unlikely to produce either. On top of that is the gratuitous cancellation of every element of NASA's manned space program. Now we start over with new efforts which will at best give us a reduced range of capabilities. On paper every new alternative can seem lower cost but so did the programs that Obama suggests ending.

It would make more sense to continue with the Orion spacecraft and the Ares I launcher to maintain our space presence. Critics have made exaggerated claims of problems with Ares I. It is clear that a management shake up may well be in order but to simply throw out $9 billion in investment is wrong. Saving these elements of Constellation would allow us to continue ISS operations without long-term dependence on the Russians and use these elements to support a more robust effort later, i.e. Moon or beyond.

NASA chief Charles Bolden speaks of the need to develop a heavy lift rocket but it is unclear that a practical/affordable rocket better than Constellation's Ares V is possible in the foreseeable future. On one hand Bolden complains that Ares V is behind schedule and then proposes an alternative that does the same thing that will arrive at even a latter date. This makes little sense. Furthermore without the Orion spacecraft what is it intended to launch?

I'm very much for advanced space technologies but of what use will they be if there is not commitment to a stable space program that can take advantage of them. Furthermore the most promising of them such as Dr. Chang-Diaz's plasma thrusters don't require massive budgets in the next few years and development can be expanded with modest budgets for many years to come. It is my primary concern is that the Obama plan is a step to the end of U.S. human space flight. In fiscal 2011 all existing NASA human space vehicles are cancelled in favor of commercial investments. Then problems with these new programs and budget pressure slowly squeeze them out of the out-year budgets as well. The end of our space program is then a fait accompli.

State of the Union

2010-01-27T20:49:00.000-08:00

President Obama performed up to my expectations tonight. He has decided not to deviate from his liberal agenda regardless of a series of election defeats the Democrats have suffered in recent months. He is leading the Democrats to a major defeat in the off year elections which is exactly what we want.

He did have some useful proposals such as endorsing the expanded use of nuclear energy and increased exploration for offshore oil and natural gas. In addition his support for improving education in science and math are on target. The President’s suggestions on incentives for stimulating small business were encouraging.

However, then we are off to increased educations loans with terms more favorable to those taking government jobs over those in the private sector. Continued support for cap and trade even though there is increasing evidence that the UN IPCC climate change story is flawed. He is still pushing his health bill with misleading claims that would reduce the deficit. He implicitly blames Bush for his problems. He attacks the Supreme Court. He claims he is going to reduce the deficit with a spending freeze while announcing one new spending plan after another. Most of all it was just too long!

I really don’t think that he got the message that the people are sending him.

My Open Letter to Conservatives...One Year Later

2010-01-19T20:42:00.001-08:00

About a year ago after President Obama assumed office I posted the following on my websites political page (the predecessor to this blog). At the time there was much pessimism among Republicans and Conservatives. I think it is interesting how my statement looks now after a year. I think that I was a little optimistic about the political judgment of “blue dog” Democrats.

Anyway here it is:

It’s time to fight Democrat liberalism. I’m reading way too much negativism about the conservative situation. While it is true that we have suffered serious setbacks in the last two elections there is no reason to be as defeatist as some commentators are. There are many reasons for the present situation including some very silly mistakes of specific candidates. The main reason, however, is the general inability of the out going Bush Administration to effectively communicate its positions and the lack of unity among Republicans in the Congress.

It is likely that that the Democrats have now reached their “high water mark” and will slowly begin to recede in the years ahead. What is important now is that we unite in opposition to the Obama Administration and the Democrat leadership in Congress. We should vote against questionable appointments like Geithner and Holder. We must oppose the wasteful surge in spending that Obama now proposes. We must also seek allies among the Democrats recently elected in basically Republican states. If they want to remain in office they must be educated not to follow Reid, Pelosi, and Obama off the cliff.

Issues we must be prepaid to fight, with bipartisan filibusters where possible, include the so-called “Freedom of Choice Act”, any new gun bans or registration, etc., socialized medicine, the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and attempts to mainstream homosexual behavior. It addition we must press to keep the Bush tax cuts as a requirement to support any stimulus bill. There is a real possibility that the Democrat policies will lead to a serious inflation problem before the 2012 election and we need to get on the right side of this issue. So what might be seen as short-term unpopular may well turn out very different in a few years.

One useful move would be to organize a group of Senators in “safe” seats and those who won’t face election until 2014 to engage in a media counter-offensive against the Democrats. They should be joined by House member in “safe” seats. We need to carefully but consistently chip away at Obama’s credibility. The decisions announced today on terrorism the clearly move in the direction of weakening our security are just one opening. Congressman Boehner handled this well. Others need to follow up and press this issue.

Now is not the time of complacency but rather the time for bold action. The future our country is clearly at stake. We must be strong now more than ever.

An Obvious Suggestion for Airport Security

2010-01-17T05:40:00.000-08:00

Yesterday (January 17, 2010), traveling public experienced another major air travel disruption because one individual opened a door into a restricted area. This resulted in all of the people who had been cleared through security and those who had already boarded planes being evacuated and rescreened at the American Airlines terminal in New York’s JFK Airport. Two weeks before a similar incident occurred at the Newark Liberty Airport. This time authorities were able apprehend the intruder quickly. I’m sure this will result in calls for more draconian punishments than those for simple trespassing.

Both incidents aren’t related to terrorism and most likely due to carelessness. My question is why have unlocked doors that anyone can open that allows access which breaks down security? Shouldn’t such doors be locked or even permanently blocked? Locking or blocking these doors would prevent these accidental breeches from happening. It makes a lot more sense than sentencing the hapless to felony sentences in prison. It would also save the airlines money and the traveling public a lot of inconvenience.

Laughing Through the Apocalypse

2009-12-19T14:07:00.000-08:00

On the lighter side of a serious issue, I think this duo from Minnesota are a lot funny than Al Franken! I first came across there work at the start of Climategate with the now famous "Hide the Decline" video. It seems they have been busy for some time now creating these parodies. In addition to being humorous they certainly have some insights into the climate change issue and the personalities linked to it. Check out Minnesotans for Global Warming.

It's Time to Investigate Climate Science

2009-12-05T05:14:00.000-08:00

The recent release of information from the Handley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK has raised profound doubts about the reliability of the science behind claims of anthropogenic global warming. The emails strongly suggest that a small group within the climate science community with an agenda has conspired to gain control of climate science and skew it toward their preconceived viewpoints.

Given that this work as been the primary basis for a series of reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And, the findings of this group are the scientific bases for the current push to reorient the global economy in such a way as to emphasis reducing carbon dioxide emissions; we need a full investigation of climate science to determine its credibility. To proceed with the Cap and Trade Bill or any other carbon mitigation efforts until such an investigation has been completed would be unwise.

One must properly view the Handley revelations in the context of over two decades of controversy in the climate science field. The emails seem to show scientists altering data in order to push their agenda. For example they clearly show the scientists unwillingness to share data with critics in the famous (or infamous) hockey stick chart that was central to the third IPCC report. Statistician Ross McKitrick’s efforts to conduct an independent review of this controversial chart were met of considerable obfuscation. McKitrick’s analysis ultimately showed that the creators of the hockey stick chart had used selective and biased data to produce the result supporting a 20th century surge in warming. In response the closed group of scientists focused on attacking the credentials of their critics rather then the substance of their arguments.

What emerges from the Handley emails is that the key scientists behind the IPCC, many of whom are funded with taxpayer dollars, have endeavored to be the sole arbiters with considerable success of who has the standing to address climate issues. They have had editors of journals removed who have published papers not to their liking. They attack fully credentialed researchers for not publishing in the journals that they control. In this way the have set up a “Catch 22” situation in which to be worthy of having a paper published a scientist must agree with them. They then proceed to claim that all recognized scientists, i.e. published in the journals that control, have a consensus. This is pure sophistry.

There should be a full investigation of the activities of the climate science community. They have received a considerable amount of government research grants. Certain scientists have denied any wrong doing and should of course be given a chance to explain themselves. However, it is possible that crimes have been committed if knowing false statements were made in proposals to acquire government funding for their work. Most importantly we need to have true review of the state of our knowledge on the global warming issue before any consideration be given to passing the Cap and Trade Bill.

Some Thoughts About NY 23

2009-10-25T08:12:00.000-07:00

I don’t think the big problem is that the Republican Party and associated stalwarts are now supporting the “too liberal” candidate, Dede Scozzafava, in the New York 23rd Congressional District's special election. Rather it is how did the New York Republican Party make such a controversial choice? My main concern here is in fixing the Party rather then defeating an aberrant candidate. If Dede Scozzafava wins, it matters little except that if we can win all three (VA, NJ governors and NY 23) then it will pressure the Blue Dogs to oppose the public option in the health care bill. If we win only one of the three or worse none of them, it’s going to be full speed ahead for Obama’s socialist policies. Conservatives by going with a third party are almost guaranteeing a Democrat win. Don’t forget that the most important vote any legislator casts is the one to organize the body!

On the other hand many leading conservatives seem to be saying, “Let’s defeat the Republican Party to send a message.” There can be a case for this in special situations. For example, I’m very happy to be rid of Arlen Specter. By not have a strong conservative as the lead Republican on the Judiciary Committee, we were continually at a disadvantage on the all important judicial confirmation process. So there are times when taking a tactical loss can be a strategic win. I don’t think the NY 23 race is a good example of this.

My real fear going forward is that Conservatives and Moderates will be at cross purposes in the upcoming elections leaving Obama and Pelosi in power. RINOs, moderates, and even Bill Clinton are/were better than the Obama/Pelosi Team and all of the czars. I do support the general idea of fighting the moderate leadership in the Republican Party but we must avoid third parties at all costs. Remember what Perot did to the Republicans in 1992 or even feeble Ralph Nader did to the Democrats in 2000? Third parties almost always lose. They almost always elect the candidate of the two major parties that is most unlike them, i.e. conservative third parties elect liberal Democrats!

At the same time, I want to warn the leadership of the Republican Party that their treatment of Sarah Palin has been reprehensible. More over it is dangerous. The one person that I could see who could reelect President Obama is a truly rogue Sarah Palin. A conservative-oriented third party movement would pull enough votes from the Republican candidate to allow Obama to have a minority win, e.g. Clinton’s. But, third party movements always need a charismatic personality to lead them. Palin is the only possibility that I see at the moment that could do this. This is why all Republican establishment types had best be very nice to Sarah. The fact that they haven’t been scares me.

Democrat's Health Care Conundrum

2009-10-04T20:26:00.000-07:00

Health care “reform” is becoming a quite the conundrum for the Democrats as they struggle to get it passed in Congress. The bottom line is that there is no way to “solve” this problem that doesn’t harm one or more politically powerful segments of the public. For the moment the Obama administration and its allies in Congress have chosen the elderly as the principal loser. This is a very risky choice as the elderly are notoriously defensive about their benefits and vote disproportionately to the rest of the population.

As I have mentioned in my prior post, the Medicare/Medicaid programs are receiving massive de facto subsidies from the private health programs via the price controls contained in the government programs. The idea that we can reduce Medicare costs by 400 to 500 billion dollars by eliminating waste and fraud doesn’t receive much support even from the pro-administration talking heads and none from anyone else. With increasing numbers of doctors refusing to take Medicare patients, additional pressure truly will undermine the program. And, don’t forget this was already a crisis given the pending wave of baby boomers that are now entering the program.

On the other side of the issue, we have the uninsured that basically breakdown into various subgroups each with distinct problems. The most aggrieved are those with pre-existing conditions who can’t get or can’t afford coverage. Then we have those in jobs, usually low paying, that don’t offer health plans. These two groups clearly merit some help. One can pass regulations that prohibit insurers from dropping clients who have developed a serious health condition while covered and develop a system to attack pre-existing condition lockout. However, these reforms will increase the cost of insurance even more on the private insurance sector. Now we have aggravated the mainstream working middle class and their employers. The solution for the working poor most clearly will require massive government support which means taxes.

Then we have the largest group of uninsured those who are temporarily out of work. In a major recession this group is certain to grow. In one sense we have mostly solved this issue with the COBRA bill of the 1970s but the kicker is that in most cases buying your former employers health plan is too expensive for the unemployed. One could create an unemployment health insurance plan that would pay these costs but who would pay for it? The worker with yet an additional payroll tax, the employer, or some split between them?

Two additional groups to consider are those who don’t have employer insurance and can afford to by private coverage but don’t buy it for some reason. Most likely because they don’t believe they will get sick and they would rather spend the money on other things. And, then we have the illegal aliens who crowd the emergency rooms in some states. Bringing the former group into the system would clearly be helpful to reducing costs (probably the only uninsured group for which that was true) but given their choices, mandating coverage would hardly incline them to vote for those making that decision. The public will generally oppose insuring the illegals under a government program and they can’t vote. So providing for them is just a loser politically.

So even with the best of motivations finding an acceptable solution is problematic. But, given our Congress that is driven by diverse special interests, writing five forms of the bill to be hammered out in secret and voted on before it can be understood, one can hardly expect the best motivations. It remains to be seen if the Democrats can patch together a bill that will until all of them in order get it passed in the Senate. It also is unclear whether a success in the fact of public opposition would ultimately rebound to their benefit.

Dissent Is Patriotic...Except When You Dissent Against Us

2009-08-10T21:29:00.000-07:00

In the last few days we have been treated on one of the greatest absurdities in politics. For decades liberals have used the protest as one of their primary political tools. A few years ago then Senator Hillary Clinton championed the patriotism of dissent when it was dissent against President Bush’s policies. Now we are treated to Speaker of the House Pelosi’s claim that those protesting the Democrats health care bill working its way through the House as un-American. At one point in a video taped segment she accuses her opponents of bringing swastikas to the meetings. Others have referred to them as mobs.

It seems our community organizer president and his liberal allies don’t like to be on the receiving end of some of their own tactics. Furthermore, they are now charging that the opposition to government health care is some organized effort by the insurance companies. Of course it is very hard for any reasonable person to see how the insurance companies could illicit such passion in a rent-a-mob. A far more reasonable interpretation of what we are seeing is a reaction of people, we a large proportion of senior citizens, to a clear threat to the high quality health care they now have.

No doubt there is some coordination behind the turnout but as the saying goes: “you can bring a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.” If there weren’t real grass roots commitment you wouldn’t get that response no matter what level of organization was involved. More specifically you would get it from the senior demographic. Democratic spokesman can spin it however they like but the elected officials know they are facing some serious opposition. The plan to slash $500 billion from Medicare over the next ten years coupled with fears of rationing threatens to turn the seniors against the bill.

The Dangers of a Government Health Care Option

2009-06-17T21:05:00.000-07:00

Before we pass Obamacare it would be useful to explore the impact of government health care programs. The two issues that are raised by the advocates of so-called health care “reform” are: the fact that health care cost have been growing significantly faster than the consumer price index and that there are some 45 to 50 million people in the U.S. without health coverage. Obviously these two issues are linked in that rapidly growing costs have priced insurance out other reach of poor people and small businesses. The advocates see a massive government program with a government run option similar to Medicare as the solution. The government plan is claimed by President Obama to “keep the private insurers honest.” My own observations call this into question.

Several years ago, before my mother passed away, I had the opportunity to see how Medicare operated compared with my employer provided plan. Let’s as an example consider an office visit with a few basic lab tests. This results in a charge of $400 for example. In the case of my private insurance, since I was going to a preferred provider, the plan paid $120 to settle the claim. On the other hand Medicare paid only about $60 for my mother’s visit. If you think that it was the quality of doctors - it wasn’t. My mother was going to a specialist while I was going to a primary care provider. So what is the answer to this mystery?

In the early 1980s the cost of Medicare was growing fast and considered out of control. The government came up with a simple solution. It made a rule that it would set the prices that Medicare would pay for various services. Providers are given the choice of taking this “assignment” for all Medicare patients or not treating any of them. So given that expenses need to be paid the providers simple responded by increasing there rates for everyone else. As the government held down the assignment rates for Medicare, the rates for everyone else soared. So the driving engine of the first problem, rapidly growing costs, is largely the government’s Medicare program.

So when you see the cost of your insurance increase, understand that much of that money is going to cover the costs that are induced by government healthcare programs. Of course there are also the cost due to those don’t have coverage and can’t pay being treated pro bono, increasing malpractice insurance costs generated by our out of control tort system, and the costs of new advanced medical tests and treatments.

Now let’s consider what will happen if we implement the proposed government option for the general population. There basically two possibilities that most be considered. Either we follow the Medicare model and establish an assignment system or let it compete in the market. If the latter case is followed it is most unlikely that government bureaucrats can compete with private insurance companies an even competition. Either they will use the assignment approach from the outset or they will be forced to it eventually in order to save the plan. So ultimately the government will set prices that will undercut and drive the private plans out business.

As I mentioned before, a significant amount of the “fair market” costs of Medicare are already being paid by the inflated costs of the private plans. So if the government plan does the same thing there soon won’t be enough private plan money to support the system. Putting it another way, he government costs for both plans will skyrocket above even the most pessimistic initial estimates. The result will be both massive tax increases, increased premiums for the government plans, and rationing of care, or all of the above.

What we should take away from this analysis is that previous government policies to tamper with the health care price structure are major cause of medical price growth. Any attempt to extend these approaches to the rest of the health care system will only compound the problem greatly.

Obama Reverses Position on Detainee Photos

2009-05-13T17:16:00.000-07:00

Today’s announcement by President Obama that he will have the Justice Department appeal a court ruling which would release photographs showing claimed mistreatment of terrorists by U.S. troops is one decision I do support. By this act President Obama has reluctantly shown real leadership. He could have easily followed calls by the radical left-wing of his party and ignored the additional damage that would be done by the release of the photographs.

In fact whatever damage to our reputation and incitement of radical Islamic forces that has already occurred has been due to a multiyear campaign by these same liberal activists. It was the single-minded obsession of the left to dig out and give great publicity to a rather small number of evens that occurred mainly for the purpose of damaging the Bush administration. They have been totally mindless of the potential consequences to our troops and to the degree it would damage cooperation with other countries in these efforts.

President Obama himself been a part of this previously when he declassified the interrogation techniques that the CIA used against just a few key terrorist leaders. By spelling out just how limited the measures were, he showed the entire world our fundamental weakness. Now potential future terrorists can be reasonably sure that as long as they are in the hands of Americans there is little we can do to make them talk. In fact if the same restrictions were in place and we had the common sense not to talk about them, the fear of what we might do could prove effective without actually resulting to harsh measures.

So today’s decision seems a little out of character. One can only hope that this shows some growth in office. However, I’m not too optimistic but let’s give the man his due for now.

Gates' Plan Fails To Meet Our Defense Requirements

2009-04-08T18:51:00.000-07:00

After reviewing the statement of Secretary Gates, I have concluded that the Obama Administration is putting forward a plan that it flawed and unbalanced. Two decisions in particular stand out. First, in the aftermath of the test launch of a North Korean missile, the Administration moves to slash the ballistic missile defense program. What sense can be made of that? Certainly the threat from rogue nation’s ballistic missiles has not been diminished. Second, the agenda seems unduly biased against the Air Force. Not only is Gates stopping production of the F-22 fighter, he is also canceling the C-17, the CSAR helicopter, the Airborne Laser, and the new strategic bomber. When viewed in context of last years’ purge of the Air Force leadership one has to ask, are these well founded actions or do they spring in part from some animus toward the Air Force?

It is clear that there is a major disconnect between Secretary Gates’ stated rationale and the decisions that he presented. Secretary Gates says that he wants to avoid over-insuring “against remote or diminishing threats” but then he slashes ballistic missile defense the day after the North Korean missile test. That is hardly a remote or diminishing threat. The combination of the North Korean missile program and the Iranian nuclear weapons program pose a clear challenge in the years ahead.

Similarly, his plan to cancel F-22 production makes little sense in that it would leave the Air Force with seven incomplete squadrons and too few aircraft to maintain these units over a reasonable life-cycle. How does he propose to maintain air superiority with so few aircraft? While his support for the F-35 is laudable, it is an aircraft optimized for ground attack not air superiority. It was always planned that the larger force of F-35s, which will ultimately replace the F-16 in the Air Force inventory, would be supported by a true air dominance fighter, i.e. the F-22. It is a mistake to see these aircraft as alternatives but rather as complementary components of a balanced force. Apparently, we have a Secretary of Defense who fails to understand this.

Obama's Misguided View of Nuclear Weapons

2009-04-05T06:43:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama has eclipsed his bad ideas on the economy with an even worse one on national and international security. I’m addressing his recent call for the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons specifically. This idea will be as impractical to implement as its will would be ultimately destabilizing if it went forward.

It ignores the reality that we have emerging and covert nuclear powers. So even if the declared nuclear states were to agree to this proposal, we would have to address these other countries. Does any truly believe that if the established powers were to disarm counties like Iran and North Korea would be dissuaded from pursuing their programs? Furthermore, we have had covert nuclear powers that we know of such as Israel and the former South African Apartheid government. Pakistan and India were in the same category before their wave of nuclear testing in the late 1990s. The recent attack on a by Israel on a purported nuclear North Korean built nuclear reactor in Syria indicates that they to were in the process of creating a nuclear weapons program.

If the established powers were to completely eliminate their nuclear capability and one the radical states were to still possess nuclear weapons we would truly be at their mercy. And mercy isn’t one of their strong points. Furthermore, we might not know with confidence the state of nuclear weapons in a given country. The South African, Pakistani, and Indian cases certainly highlight this situation. While there were a lot of suspicions before the South African unilateral disarmament and the Pakistani and Indian test, the full nature of their weapons capacity wasn’t generally known or at least accepted.

It is also far from clear that the great powers can be trusted on this. The United States with or without nuclear weapons would still in many ways be the worlds only superpower if a somewhat diminished one. However, consider the situations Russia would face. Stripped of nuclear weapons, it would be country with a population of about that of Germany and France combined with a much smaller GDP. It would be vulnerable to attack in the east from the vastly more numerous Chinese. Russia without nuclear weapons would go way down on the international pecking order. While France would have no clearly defined security threats like Russia, it is unlikely that they maintain their status in international affairs as a post-nuclear state. Let’s not forget they have been very defiant historically over just this issue. China is more of a mystery as there could be pros and cons for them. However, the reciprocal fears of cheating by both Russia and China make unilateral disarmament very untenable.

Finally, I maintain that nuclear weapons free world ultimately be a more unstable world. Let’s not forget that there has not been a full-scale war between the great powers during the nuclear era. The reason for this is that the costs of unlimited conflict are near total destruction. Does anyone seriously doubt that if nuclear weapons didn’t exist that the Cold War would have exploded into a real war at some point? Note that since Israel has been recognized to be a nuclear power there hasn’t been another major Arab-Israeli war. A shooting war between Russia and China is practically unthinkable now with Russia holding the nuclear advantage and China the manpower advantage. If a major war breaks out any disarmament regime can be expected to breakdown rapidly. In turn this could lead to the very disaster that disarmament advocates seek to avoid.

The leaders of all of the great powers and their advisors understand all of this but it seems our current President doesn’t. This does not give us much confidence in our foreign policy for the next few years. No wonder North Korea now feels free to test their intercontinental ballistic missile at this time. Joe Biden’s words from the campaign last year are about to come true.

Thoughts About Rush and the Republicans

2009-03-30T21:10:00.000-07:00

Liberals have been going on a lot in recent weeks about Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans. The suggestion is that Republicans can’t disagree with Rush or even more absurdly that Rush is the leader of the Republican Party. This is of course wrong.

What has lead to some awkward moments for prominent Republican figures are occasions when these individual go along with the media’s insinuations that there is something inherently unacceptable about Limbaugh. And, by implication that one must distance one’s self from his viewpoints in order to be acceptable in mainstream politics. This is what led to negative feedback for the base of the party to these leaders. It reflects the weakness of will that characterized the last year’s McCain candidacy.

There is no problem in disagreeing with Rush on issues. I’m sure that I do that from time to time myself. What is unacceptable is to run away from positions Rush takes simply to appease the liberal media. To do so is to offend a significant voting block that is crucial to any Republican victory.

Obama Shows Lack of Knowledge of Economics

2009-03-24T19:02:00.000-07:00

Obama really messed up on the question about the deduction for charities. Does he understand Economics 101? Or, does he think that the “evil rich” give without any thought of the tax consequences? A lot of Democrats aren’t going to like this one too!

Also, notice that he completely missed the point of the questioner about what would be the impact on the needy. He was just obsessed with taxing the rich. Does he think it’s fair when the amount of help that goes to the poor get is reduced? I’m reminded of his answer to a question during the campaign about the capital gains tax where he didn’t care about the effect it has on economic growth. He was only concerned that the rich pay higher rates out of his sense of what is fair.

The Big Paradox of Obamanomics

2009-03-22T09:51:00.000-07:00

With the AIG bonus “scandal” as an opening, Obama and the Democrats are now moving to place restriction on the amount of compensation executives can receive. The first step is to target the large TARP recipients. Now Obama is floating the idea of extending it to all financial corporations and even perhaps to all of the publicly traded corporations. The details are sketchy at the moment but the idea is to reduce the compensation of these executives one way or another.
This exposes one of the major contradictions in the Obama/Democrat ideology. One the one hand they propose tax increases on family incomes over $250,000 per year in order to finance their universal healthcare program and other massive increases in government spending. On the other they want to reduce the taxable compensation earned by those over the $250,000 level. The leaves us in a quandary as to how they propose to finance this increased government spending.
Put another way, one can understand a politicians plan to raise revenue by taxing the “rich” but with trillion dollar increases in spending you need a lot of rich to tax. This goes against the whole principle that led to the Clinton surpluses. The rich made a lot of money during the internet/software bubble which was then taxed. If you reduce the salaries and bonuses of the executive class, you are reducing the tax base from which to raise revenue.
So as the Democrat candidate for senate from Minnesota once put it in his former role as SNL comedian, “What does this mean to me “Al Franken?” What means is that the don’t tax the middle class promise is soon to go by the wayside. There will need to be significant taxes on the middle class (as defined by Obama, i.e. those below $250,000) to pay for all this or the government will join the big banks in bankruptcy. Many of these taxes will be hidden in the form of the “Cap and Trade” program to reduce CO2 emissions. You will see them as your utility bills increase as well as in the cost of manufactured products and gasoline.
So be happy with your $500 per year tax cut. You will pay dearly for it in so many ways!