The Democrats’ Fairy Tale
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: January 14, 2008
“Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” Thus spoke Bill Clinton last Monday night, exasperated by Barack Obama’s claim that he — unlike Hillary Clinton — had been consistently right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) on the Iraq war. Now in fact, Obama has been pretty consistent in his opposition to the war. But Bill Clinton is right in this respect: Obama’s view of the current situation in Iraq is out of touch with reality. In this, however, Obama is at one with Hillary Clinton and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party.
When President Bush announced the surge of troops in support of a new counterinsurgency strategy a year ago, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democratic Congressional leaders predicted failure. Obama, for example, told Larry King that he didn’t believe additional U.S. troops would “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” Then in April, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, asserted that “this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything.” In September, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus that his claims of progress in Iraq required a “willing suspension of disbelief.”
The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second-lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003. And according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of day-to-day military operations in Iraq, last month’s overall number of deaths, which includes Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties as well as U.S. and coalition losses, may well have been the lowest since the war began.
Do Obama and Clinton and Reid now acknowledge that they were wrong? Are they willing to say the surge worked?
No. It’s apparently impermissible for leading Democrats to acknowledge — let alone celebrate — progress in Iraq. When asked recently whether she stood behind her “willing suspension of disbelief” insult to General Petraeus, Clinton said, “That’s right.”
When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, “Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?” he didn’t directly address the question. But he volunteered that “much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar Province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what? — the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shias. We should start negotiating now.”
But Sunni tribes in Anbar announced in September 2006 that they would join to fight Al Qaeda. That was two months before the Democrats won control of Congress. The Sunni tribes turned not primarily because of fear of the Shiites, but because of their horror at Al Qaeda’s atrocities in Anbar. And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces.
Last year’s success, in Anbar and elsewhere, was made possible by confidence among Iraqis that U.S. troops would stay and help protect them, that the U.S. would not abandon them to their enemies. Because the U.S. sent more troops instead of withdrawing — because, in other words, President Bush won his battles in 2007 with the Democratic Congress — we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq.
And now Iraq’s Parliament has passed a de-Baathification law — one of the so-called benchmarks Congress established for political reconciliation. For much of 2007, Democrats were able to deprecate the military progress and political reconciliation taking place on the ground by harping on the failure of the Iraqi government to pass the benchmark legislation. They are being deprived of even that talking point.
Yesterday, on “Meet the Press,” Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates’ “commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009.” So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.
That is truly a fairy tale. And it is driven by a refusal to admit real success because that success has been achieved under the leadership of ... George W. Bush. The horror!
Monday, January 14, 2008
Monday, January 07, 2008
Barack Obama's Racist Church
If Sen. Obama rejects the Rev. Wright’s warped view of this country, why does he continue to attend his church?
Monday, January 7, 2008 10:16 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
Imagine if Mitt Romney’s church proclaimed on its website that it is “unashamedly white.”
The media would pounce, and Romney’s presidential candidacy would be over. Yet that is exactly what Barack Obama’s church says on its web site — except in reverse.
“We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian,” says the Trinity United Church of Christ’s website in Chicago. “We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
That’s just the beginning. The church has a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa,” according to its website, and its pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. subscribes to what is called the Black Value System.
While the Black Value System includes such items as commitment to God, education, and self-discipline, it refers to “our racist competitive society” and includes the disavowal of the pursuit of “middle-classness” and a pledge of allegiance to “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.” It defines “middle-classness” as a way for American society to “snare” blacks rather than “killing them off directly” or “placing them in concentration camps,” just as the country structures “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.”
In sermons and interviews, Dr. Wright has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday after 9/11, Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.
“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”
In one of his sermons, Wright said, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
As for Israel, “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now,” Wright has said. “Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”
Obama says he found religion and Jesus Christ through Wright, whom he met in the mid-1980s. He has been attending Wright’s church regularly since 1988.
The church occupies a tan building on West 95th Street near a public housing project and railroad tracks. Since becoming pastor in 1972, Wright has seen the church’s membership grow to more than 8,500. The church is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ, a predominantly white denomination known for its liberal politics.
In 1991, Obama joined the church and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith. Wright later married Obama and Michelle Robinson and baptized their two daughters.
The title of Obama’s bestseller “The Audacity of Hope” comes from one of Wright’s sermons. Wright is one of the first people Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004.
But Obama’s life does not exactly support Wright’s thesis that blacks in America are oppressed. A Harvard Law School graduate, Obama married a black Princeton graduate who also has a degree from Harvard Law School. Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois; his wife is a vice president of the University of Chicago Hospitals. With his wife, Obama has been making more than $1 million a year.
On a few points, Obama has sought to distance himself from Wright’s teachings or explain them away. While Wright is his pastor and friend, Obama has said, they do not see eye to eye on everything. In particular, Obama has said he “strongly disagrees with any portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that advocates divestment from Israel or expresses anything less than strong support for Israel’s security.”
As for Wright’s repeated comments blaming America for the 9/11 attacks, Obama has said it sounds as if the minister was trying to be “provocative.”
Just before Obama’s nationally televised campaign kickoff rally last Feb. 10, the candidate disinvited Wright from giving the public invocation. Wright explained: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, “a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”
According to Wright, Obama then told him, “'You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.'” But privately, Obama and his family prayed with Wright just before the presidential announcement.
To his credit, Obama so far has avoided race-specific appeals as part of his candidacy, accounting in part for his widespread appeal.
Obama “has taught the black community you don’t have to act like Jesse Jackson, you don’t have to act like Al Sharpton,” conservative commentator Bill Bennett said on CNN on Jan. 3. “You can talk about the issues. [Obama has] great dignity.”
But if Obama rejects Wright’s warped view of this country, why does he continue to attend his church, raising the question of whether Obama secretly agrees with his friend and mentor? At the least, Obama’s membership in Wright’s church suggests a lack of judgment and an insensitivity to views that are repugnant to the vast majority of white Americans who are not bigots.
That same lack of judgment has shown up in Obama’s gaffes—threatening to invade Pakistan and offering prompt negotiations with anti-American despots. More frightening, Obama voted last August to give Osama bin Laden and other terrorists the same rights as Americans when it comes to intercepting their overseas calls in order to pick up clues needed to stop another attack.
Jen Psaki, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, has tried to paper over the candidate’s support of the Black Value System by saying that Obama “believes its basic tenets of commitment to God, to community, to self-discipline and self-reliance continue to have applicability not only to the African-American community but to all people.”
But that is not what the Black Value System says. One can only imagine the outrage that would erupt if a white presidential candidate like Romney subscribed to something called the White Value System. Yet while Obama has been referred to in the media tens of thousands of times in the past month, only one story in the Concord Monitor in New Hampshire offhandedly mentioned Obama’s church’s “unashamedly black” slogan.
In contrast, in an exquisite example of the double standard they apply to Democrats versus Republicans, the media love to focus on Romney’s religion, which is not relevant to how he would perform as president. Close to half the media references to Romney refer to the fact that he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Very few of them mention that he is both a Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School graduate, credentials that are relevant to how he would perform as president.
When Romney’s father ran for president, his religion was not an issue simply because the media rightly recognized that it was not pertinent to his candidacy. Today, as part of their coverage of Romney, the media run denigrating quotes about Mormonism that they would never dare to run about any other religion. At the same time, the media have largely ignored or downplayed the clearly racist slogan of Obama’s church and the anti-American and anti-Israel stances of its pastor.
In two exceptions to the media blackout, Tucker Carlson of MSNBC described Trinity as having a “racially exclusive theology” that “contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity.” Sean Hannity of Fox News confronted Wright on TV and asked how a black value system is any more acceptable than a white value system.
If a white presidential candidate’s church had a similar statement and “you substitute the word black for white, there would be an outrage in this country,” Hannity said. “There would be cries of racism in this country.'”
“If your spiritual advisor makes outrageous statements, it’s incumbent on you as a leader to denounce those statements,” says Brad Blakeman, a former Bush White House aide who heads the conservative Freedom’s Watch. “Silence is an admission that you agree with what your spiritual advisor pronounces.”
If his church membership calls into question Obama’s judgment, the dichotomy in the coverage of his and Romney’s religious affiliations spotlights the media’s double standard and how its skewed reporting influences who will become president.
But media bias or not, if Obama is his party’s nominee, his Republican opponent will rightly be able to make use of Rev. Wright and his radical teachings as effectively as supporters of George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton’s furlough to help Bush win the presidency.
If Sen. Obama rejects the Rev. Wright’s warped view of this country, why does he continue to attend his church?
Monday, January 7, 2008 10:16 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
Imagine if Mitt Romney’s church proclaimed on its website that it is “unashamedly white.”
The media would pounce, and Romney’s presidential candidacy would be over. Yet that is exactly what Barack Obama’s church says on its web site — except in reverse.
“We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian,” says the Trinity United Church of Christ’s website in Chicago. “We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
That’s just the beginning. The church has a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa,” according to its website, and its pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. subscribes to what is called the Black Value System.
While the Black Value System includes such items as commitment to God, education, and self-discipline, it refers to “our racist competitive society” and includes the disavowal of the pursuit of “middle-classness” and a pledge of allegiance to “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.” It defines “middle-classness” as a way for American society to “snare” blacks rather than “killing them off directly” or “placing them in concentration camps,” just as the country structures “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.”
In sermons and interviews, Dr. Wright has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday after 9/11, Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.
“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”
In one of his sermons, Wright said, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!...We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”
As for Israel, “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now,” Wright has said. “Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”
Obama says he found religion and Jesus Christ through Wright, whom he met in the mid-1980s. He has been attending Wright’s church regularly since 1988.
The church occupies a tan building on West 95th Street near a public housing project and railroad tracks. Since becoming pastor in 1972, Wright has seen the church’s membership grow to more than 8,500. The church is the largest congregation in the United Church of Christ, a predominantly white denomination known for its liberal politics.
In 1991, Obama joined the church and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith. Wright later married Obama and Michelle Robinson and baptized their two daughters.
The title of Obama’s bestseller “The Audacity of Hope” comes from one of Wright’s sermons. Wright is one of the first people Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004.
But Obama’s life does not exactly support Wright’s thesis that blacks in America are oppressed. A Harvard Law School graduate, Obama married a black Princeton graduate who also has a degree from Harvard Law School. Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois; his wife is a vice president of the University of Chicago Hospitals. With his wife, Obama has been making more than $1 million a year.
On a few points, Obama has sought to distance himself from Wright’s teachings or explain them away. While Wright is his pastor and friend, Obama has said, they do not see eye to eye on everything. In particular, Obama has said he “strongly disagrees with any portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that advocates divestment from Israel or expresses anything less than strong support for Israel’s security.”
As for Wright’s repeated comments blaming America for the 9/11 attacks, Obama has said it sounds as if the minister was trying to be “provocative.”
Just before Obama’s nationally televised campaign kickoff rally last Feb. 10, the candidate disinvited Wright from giving the public invocation. Wright explained: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, “a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”
According to Wright, Obama then told him, “'You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.'” But privately, Obama and his family prayed with Wright just before the presidential announcement.
To his credit, Obama so far has avoided race-specific appeals as part of his candidacy, accounting in part for his widespread appeal.
Obama “has taught the black community you don’t have to act like Jesse Jackson, you don’t have to act like Al Sharpton,” conservative commentator Bill Bennett said on CNN on Jan. 3. “You can talk about the issues. [Obama has] great dignity.”
But if Obama rejects Wright’s warped view of this country, why does he continue to attend his church, raising the question of whether Obama secretly agrees with his friend and mentor? At the least, Obama’s membership in Wright’s church suggests a lack of judgment and an insensitivity to views that are repugnant to the vast majority of white Americans who are not bigots.
That same lack of judgment has shown up in Obama’s gaffes—threatening to invade Pakistan and offering prompt negotiations with anti-American despots. More frightening, Obama voted last August to give Osama bin Laden and other terrorists the same rights as Americans when it comes to intercepting their overseas calls in order to pick up clues needed to stop another attack.
Jen Psaki, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, has tried to paper over the candidate’s support of the Black Value System by saying that Obama “believes its basic tenets of commitment to God, to community, to self-discipline and self-reliance continue to have applicability not only to the African-American community but to all people.”
But that is not what the Black Value System says. One can only imagine the outrage that would erupt if a white presidential candidate like Romney subscribed to something called the White Value System. Yet while Obama has been referred to in the media tens of thousands of times in the past month, only one story in the Concord Monitor in New Hampshire offhandedly mentioned Obama’s church’s “unashamedly black” slogan.
In contrast, in an exquisite example of the double standard they apply to Democrats versus Republicans, the media love to focus on Romney’s religion, which is not relevant to how he would perform as president. Close to half the media references to Romney refer to the fact that he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Very few of them mention that he is both a Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School graduate, credentials that are relevant to how he would perform as president.
When Romney’s father ran for president, his religion was not an issue simply because the media rightly recognized that it was not pertinent to his candidacy. Today, as part of their coverage of Romney, the media run denigrating quotes about Mormonism that they would never dare to run about any other religion. At the same time, the media have largely ignored or downplayed the clearly racist slogan of Obama’s church and the anti-American and anti-Israel stances of its pastor.
In two exceptions to the media blackout, Tucker Carlson of MSNBC described Trinity as having a “racially exclusive theology” that “contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity.” Sean Hannity of Fox News confronted Wright on TV and asked how a black value system is any more acceptable than a white value system.
If a white presidential candidate’s church had a similar statement and “you substitute the word black for white, there would be an outrage in this country,” Hannity said. “There would be cries of racism in this country.'”
“If your spiritual advisor makes outrageous statements, it’s incumbent on you as a leader to denounce those statements,” says Brad Blakeman, a former Bush White House aide who heads the conservative Freedom’s Watch. “Silence is an admission that you agree with what your spiritual advisor pronounces.”
If his church membership calls into question Obama’s judgment, the dichotomy in the coverage of his and Romney’s religious affiliations spotlights the media’s double standard and how its skewed reporting influences who will become president.
But media bias or not, if Obama is his party’s nominee, his Republican opponent will rightly be able to make use of Rev. Wright and his radical teachings as effectively as supporters of George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton’s furlough to help Bush win the presidency.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Wow, it has certainly been a while since I have posted anything on this blog. It is most definately the season to post. It is 2008 and the presidential elections are in full swing. Can you believe that Obama took a decisive victory in the Iowa caucus. I was a little surprised that he won as big as he did. I would wager that Hillary was more surprised than anybody. The last time I posted on this site I did not know who Barack Obama was.
It is very interesting that He won in Iowa; not so much because he is black and so much of Iowa is white, not so much that he has questionable ties with a church that is reportedly racist,(www.tucc.org) Trinity United Church of Christ, and so many people in Iowa are Christians; not so much because he is a liberal with Islamic ties, and most of Iowa is so conservative and not Islamic; but mainly because Barack Obama has made such a strong point to rid himself of simple American and Patriotic conduct while on his campaign, and the people of Iowa are so American.
He refused to wear an American Flag lapel pin while campaigning. He never puts his hand over his heart when he hears the national anthem. He prides himself with a voting record of never supporting the troops while at war. He touts that he is the candidate for change, but shunning simple acts of country honor and patriotism is certainly not the kind of change that Americans want, especially those in Iowa. Perhaps California liberals and nut cases would buy into this nonsense but not Iowans. Don't get me wrong, I hope he gets the nomination, because I still have enough blind faith in the American people to believe they would never elect someone like him. Too young, inexperienced, shady past and unamerican. It is scary when Hillary starts to look good.
It is very interesting that He won in Iowa; not so much because he is black and so much of Iowa is white, not so much that he has questionable ties with a church that is reportedly racist,(www.tucc.org) Trinity United Church of Christ, and so many people in Iowa are Christians; not so much because he is a liberal with Islamic ties, and most of Iowa is so conservative and not Islamic; but mainly because Barack Obama has made such a strong point to rid himself of simple American and Patriotic conduct while on his campaign, and the people of Iowa are so American.
He refused to wear an American Flag lapel pin while campaigning. He never puts his hand over his heart when he hears the national anthem. He prides himself with a voting record of never supporting the troops while at war. He touts that he is the candidate for change, but shunning simple acts of country honor and patriotism is certainly not the kind of change that Americans want, especially those in Iowa. Perhaps California liberals and nut cases would buy into this nonsense but not Iowans. Don't get me wrong, I hope he gets the nomination, because I still have enough blind faith in the American people to believe they would never elect someone like him. Too young, inexperienced, shady past and unamerican. It is scary when Hillary starts to look good.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
I just wanted to pass on this interesting article of Hillary's New York track record.
If those yankess are stupid enough to keep putting her in office, then they deserve what they get; fortunately, the president is looking out for everybody.
Jamey Green
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary's Policies Are a Problem, Not Her Persona: Amity Shlaes
Feb. 15 (Bloomberg) -- When it comes to Hillary Clinton, things are starting to feel like 2000 all over again.
During Clinton's first campaign, her opponents bashed her in a highly personal fashion for her ambition, her lefty allies and her hair. Now, the former First Lady is running for the Senate again -- and the Democratic nomination in 2008.
Critics seem to be preparing to bash her in a highly personal fashion for her ambition, her allies, and -- you get the picture. An ABC reporter in Italy this week even tried to get Laura Bush to take a shot at Hillary, but the current First Lady muddled out of it.
This is just as well. After all, the generalized Hillary hating of the 1990s marked a Republican low. A repeat would be embarrassing, and it would also be off the mark. In the interim, Clinton has had a job -- U.S. senator and has won the right to be evaluated on her work representing New York. Besides, lawmakers often change in office.
In 2000, Clinton campaigned for targeted relief for the suffering old industrial communities upstate and support for tourism. Her package placed her admirably in the progressive Democratic tradition. But it didn't have much economic meaning.
Though Clinton talked about her desire to ``encourage high- tech entrepreneurs to locate here,'' you got the feeling she wouldn't know a market if it came up and shook her hand in Elmira.
Programs Jeopardized
Even as she was campaigning, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was dropping. Clinton's first year in office saw the equities' crash and the national economy move into recession. New York state's finances are dependent on Wall Street's, so the downturn drained state coffers. Recessions do trickle down. Subsidized day care, tourism -- the programs Clinton liked best - - were in jeopardy.
At that time, President George W. Bush argued that general tax cuts -- as opposed to targeted ones -- would be good for the economy. He liked marginal rate cuts to the income tax, and he sought cuts for lower earners. He also fought for cuts in the capital-gains tax rate and taxes on dividends.
Clinton could have gone along. She didn't. Mechanically, she questioned the premise of the Bush tax cuts: ``Will we meet the challenges of our time or will we squander this moment on a budget that puts politics first and people last?''
`People First'
As E.J. McMahon, an economist at the Manhattan Institute, points out, the tax cuts did turn out to put ``people first.'' Lower earning households saw great savings: a single parent of two children under age 17 saw an effective 84 percent cut in tax liability. In 2005, McMahon estimates, New Yorkers got to keep $14.6 billion in earnings that they would have had to pay in taxes without the changes in the federal law.
What's more, the Bush tax cuts were followed by both market and economic comebacks, just as Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's capital-gains rate cut was followed by the boom of the late 1990s. Federal tax rate cuts did a lot to offset state and local tax increases. Using something called the State Tax Analysis Modeling Program, a software program that tries out different tax scenarios, McMahon estimates that without the federal cuts New York City would have lost jobs. Instead employment grew.
McMahon figures that for the six-year period of Clinton's first term New Yorkers will have kept $60 billion that they would have otherwise paid in taxes. Lots of people in New York don't get a Wall Street bonus. This tax cut was their bonus. Deprive them of it, and you limit the bonuses to Wall Street. You favor the rich in exactly the way that Clinton opposes.
Has She Learned?
But what matters more here is whether Clinton has learned much. New York state has had a dramatic fiscal experience in the past decade.
But Clinton has shown little recognition of that. Her agenda today is similar to her agenda of 2000: political impulses that don't add up economically. They include such things as FEMA relief for Katrina victims; a federal government program to help New Yorkers find health insurance; some $2.5 million for an environmental study of the Long Island shoreline from Fire Island to endangered Tiana Beach in Hampton Bays.
Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill mandating that insurers continue to offer customers the prescription drugs they request - - bound to raise costs. She has joined Horizon Organic Producers, a milk cooperative, in cajoling New York dairymen to keep cows hormone free. Sweet and trivial.
Doesn't Deliver
But when it comes to serious questions of generating growth, she is still absent. It was said of George Bush the Father that he believed that ``wealth is created when your aunt dies.'' You get the feeling that in her own way Hillary is as oblivious to how the economy works as the elder Bush.
As for joining Bush in making permanent the tax cuts that helped her state, she doesn't deliver. Indeed, she criticizes the president for ``misplaced priorities.'' This comment displays a remarkable disregard for the realities of New York.
What a wonderful thing it would be if Republicans would skip their criticism of the Clinton persona. Instead, they could concentrate their spotlight on her economics. That's where change is needed. And that's where consequences need to be spelled out.
To contact the writer of this column:
Amity Shlaes at ashlaes@bloomberg.net
If those yankess are stupid enough to keep putting her in office, then they deserve what they get; fortunately, the president is looking out for everybody.
Jamey Green
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary's Policies Are a Problem, Not Her Persona: Amity Shlaes
Feb. 15 (Bloomberg) -- When it comes to Hillary Clinton, things are starting to feel like 2000 all over again.
During Clinton's first campaign, her opponents bashed her in a highly personal fashion for her ambition, her lefty allies and her hair. Now, the former First Lady is running for the Senate again -- and the Democratic nomination in 2008.
Critics seem to be preparing to bash her in a highly personal fashion for her ambition, her allies, and -- you get the picture. An ABC reporter in Italy this week even tried to get Laura Bush to take a shot at Hillary, but the current First Lady muddled out of it.
This is just as well. After all, the generalized Hillary hating of the 1990s marked a Republican low. A repeat would be embarrassing, and it would also be off the mark. In the interim, Clinton has had a job -- U.S. senator and has won the right to be evaluated on her work representing New York. Besides, lawmakers often change in office.
In 2000, Clinton campaigned for targeted relief for the suffering old industrial communities upstate and support for tourism. Her package placed her admirably in the progressive Democratic tradition. But it didn't have much economic meaning.
Though Clinton talked about her desire to ``encourage high- tech entrepreneurs to locate here,'' you got the feeling she wouldn't know a market if it came up and shook her hand in Elmira.
Programs Jeopardized
Even as she was campaigning, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was dropping. Clinton's first year in office saw the equities' crash and the national economy move into recession. New York state's finances are dependent on Wall Street's, so the downturn drained state coffers. Recessions do trickle down. Subsidized day care, tourism -- the programs Clinton liked best - - were in jeopardy.
At that time, President George W. Bush argued that general tax cuts -- as opposed to targeted ones -- would be good for the economy. He liked marginal rate cuts to the income tax, and he sought cuts for lower earners. He also fought for cuts in the capital-gains tax rate and taxes on dividends.
Clinton could have gone along. She didn't. Mechanically, she questioned the premise of the Bush tax cuts: ``Will we meet the challenges of our time or will we squander this moment on a budget that puts politics first and people last?''
`People First'
As E.J. McMahon, an economist at the Manhattan Institute, points out, the tax cuts did turn out to put ``people first.'' Lower earning households saw great savings: a single parent of two children under age 17 saw an effective 84 percent cut in tax liability. In 2005, McMahon estimates, New Yorkers got to keep $14.6 billion in earnings that they would have had to pay in taxes without the changes in the federal law.
What's more, the Bush tax cuts were followed by both market and economic comebacks, just as Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's capital-gains rate cut was followed by the boom of the late 1990s. Federal tax rate cuts did a lot to offset state and local tax increases. Using something called the State Tax Analysis Modeling Program, a software program that tries out different tax scenarios, McMahon estimates that without the federal cuts New York City would have lost jobs. Instead employment grew.
McMahon figures that for the six-year period of Clinton's first term New Yorkers will have kept $60 billion that they would have otherwise paid in taxes. Lots of people in New York don't get a Wall Street bonus. This tax cut was their bonus. Deprive them of it, and you limit the bonuses to Wall Street. You favor the rich in exactly the way that Clinton opposes.
Has She Learned?
But what matters more here is whether Clinton has learned much. New York state has had a dramatic fiscal experience in the past decade.
But Clinton has shown little recognition of that. Her agenda today is similar to her agenda of 2000: political impulses that don't add up economically. They include such things as FEMA relief for Katrina victims; a federal government program to help New Yorkers find health insurance; some $2.5 million for an environmental study of the Long Island shoreline from Fire Island to endangered Tiana Beach in Hampton Bays.
Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill mandating that insurers continue to offer customers the prescription drugs they request - - bound to raise costs. She has joined Horizon Organic Producers, a milk cooperative, in cajoling New York dairymen to keep cows hormone free. Sweet and trivial.
Doesn't Deliver
But when it comes to serious questions of generating growth, she is still absent. It was said of George Bush the Father that he believed that ``wealth is created when your aunt dies.'' You get the feeling that in her own way Hillary is as oblivious to how the economy works as the elder Bush.
As for joining Bush in making permanent the tax cuts that helped her state, she doesn't deliver. Indeed, she criticizes the president for ``misplaced priorities.'' This comment displays a remarkable disregard for the realities of New York.
What a wonderful thing it would be if Republicans would skip their criticism of the Clinton persona. Instead, they could concentrate their spotlight on her economics. That's where change is needed. And that's where consequences need to be spelled out.
To contact the writer of this column:
Amity Shlaes at ashlaes@bloomberg.net
I thank God Almighty that Al Gore is not the US president.
Jamey Green
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Gored in Jeddah
Published February 15, 2006
The Muslim-Danish cartoon controversy has provided an excellent teaching opportunity in which the West demonstrates to the Arab world how even insulting/silly/opportunistic/sycophantic speech is allowed expression in our world in the belief that Truth ultimately will prevail.
Exhibit A: Al Gore.
The former vice president spoke in Saudi Arabia last weekend at the 2006 Jeddah (not to be confused with Jihadist, though we're not sure why) Economic Forum, where he bashed the U.S. and made Kumbaya noises about all just-getting-along.
Which is fine. We'd all like to just get along, but could the Saudis go first?
Perhaps Gore, instead of slapping the U.S. for behaviors unbecoming a superpower, might have asked the Saudi monarchy to stop sponsoring terrorists. He might have asked them to stop funding Islamist schools that teach future terrorists that the U.S. is the Great Satan and that all Americans are infidels who need to be killed.
That would be a nice start to our keeping open channels of friendship and mutual understanding. On the other hand, it would probably be considered bad manners to bring up terrorism and that Wahhabi thing while a guest in the Host State. Better to bash the homeboys, who can be counted upon to resist the urge to behead people with whom they disagree.
Besides, Gore has every right to his opinion. We believe in that concept in the West. He also has every right to say that the U.S. committed terrible abuses against Arabs living in the U.S. after the 9-11 attacks, even if it's not precisely true.
Terrible abuses? Gore apparently was referring to the detention of some 1,200 Arabs in the U.S. in the immediate wake of the 9-11 attacks. With a section of New York destroyed and the smell of burning human flesh still in the air, it seemed reasonable to try to prevent any more attacks.
I'm sure the government considered arresting as many elderly white women as possible, but opted for the politically risky alternative of detaining people of Arab descent whose papers didn't seem perfectly in order and who otherwise fit the description of the 9-11 attackers.
Some of those detained, regrettably, were held for a time without being charged or without speedy access to legal representation.
"This was unfortunate," Gore might have said, "and the U.S. doesn't countenance unfair treatment of any group. We hope in the future to operate more efficiently should the need, God forbid, arise again."
While he was sounding slightly presidential, Gore might have continued:
"Of course, we're counting on you, good Saudis, to help us ensure that no such atrocity is committed ever again. We know you can't be held accountable for the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. We don't believe in indicting nations on the basis of a few bad actors.
"But we sure would appreciate it if you'd consider closing down those hideous schools that teach children to hate and kill. And that 72-virgin gig? I mean really." (Urgent Note to Readers: This is not a cartoon.)
To his credit, Gore did urge his audience to join the West in condemning Iran's attempts to develop nuclear weapons. But he saved most of his criticism for his own country, also blasting the U.S. visa policy toward Saudis, which he curiously said was playing into al-Qaeda's hands.
It is true that some Saudis have to wait longer-than-usual periods after applying to enter the U.S., presumably while every care is taken to ensure that they're coming for purposes stated rather than to take flight lessons.
No one wants this world we've inherited from the terrorists, least of all Americans who don't relish endless security checks. Nor does anyone want innocent people detained or denied access to a nation that welcomes all.
Were I an Arab-American detained for no good reason and denied my civil rights because of my ethnicity, I'd be furious. I'd raise Cain, write op-eds and maybe even file a lawsuit. And then, very quietly, I'd thank Allah that I live in the U.S., where such protests are encouraged and where a citizen can sue his own government.
However much we might wish otherwise, we're locked into this defensive mode for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, everyone is entitled to think and say what he pleases. The same free speech that permits dissent -- and controversial cartoons -- also allows fools to out themselves.
Surely even the Saudis see the true picture -- that Al Gore is a bitter politician who, sadly, seems to be one slice short of a loaf these days.
Kathleen Parker can be reached at kparker@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5202.
Jamey Green
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Gored in Jeddah
Published February 15, 2006
The Muslim-Danish cartoon controversy has provided an excellent teaching opportunity in which the West demonstrates to the Arab world how even insulting/silly/opportunistic/sycophantic speech is allowed expression in our world in the belief that Truth ultimately will prevail.
Exhibit A: Al Gore.
The former vice president spoke in Saudi Arabia last weekend at the 2006 Jeddah (not to be confused with Jihadist, though we're not sure why) Economic Forum, where he bashed the U.S. and made Kumbaya noises about all just-getting-along.
Which is fine. We'd all like to just get along, but could the Saudis go first?
Perhaps Gore, instead of slapping the U.S. for behaviors unbecoming a superpower, might have asked the Saudi monarchy to stop sponsoring terrorists. He might have asked them to stop funding Islamist schools that teach future terrorists that the U.S. is the Great Satan and that all Americans are infidels who need to be killed.
That would be a nice start to our keeping open channels of friendship and mutual understanding. On the other hand, it would probably be considered bad manners to bring up terrorism and that Wahhabi thing while a guest in the Host State. Better to bash the homeboys, who can be counted upon to resist the urge to behead people with whom they disagree.
Besides, Gore has every right to his opinion. We believe in that concept in the West. He also has every right to say that the U.S. committed terrible abuses against Arabs living in the U.S. after the 9-11 attacks, even if it's not precisely true.
Terrible abuses? Gore apparently was referring to the detention of some 1,200 Arabs in the U.S. in the immediate wake of the 9-11 attacks. With a section of New York destroyed and the smell of burning human flesh still in the air, it seemed reasonable to try to prevent any more attacks.
I'm sure the government considered arresting as many elderly white women as possible, but opted for the politically risky alternative of detaining people of Arab descent whose papers didn't seem perfectly in order and who otherwise fit the description of the 9-11 attackers.
Some of those detained, regrettably, were held for a time without being charged or without speedy access to legal representation.
"This was unfortunate," Gore might have said, "and the U.S. doesn't countenance unfair treatment of any group. We hope in the future to operate more efficiently should the need, God forbid, arise again."
While he was sounding slightly presidential, Gore might have continued:
"Of course, we're counting on you, good Saudis, to help us ensure that no such atrocity is committed ever again. We know you can't be held accountable for the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. We don't believe in indicting nations on the basis of a few bad actors.
"But we sure would appreciate it if you'd consider closing down those hideous schools that teach children to hate and kill. And that 72-virgin gig? I mean really." (Urgent Note to Readers: This is not a cartoon.)
To his credit, Gore did urge his audience to join the West in condemning Iran's attempts to develop nuclear weapons. But he saved most of his criticism for his own country, also blasting the U.S. visa policy toward Saudis, which he curiously said was playing into al-Qaeda's hands.
It is true that some Saudis have to wait longer-than-usual periods after applying to enter the U.S., presumably while every care is taken to ensure that they're coming for purposes stated rather than to take flight lessons.
No one wants this world we've inherited from the terrorists, least of all Americans who don't relish endless security checks. Nor does anyone want innocent people detained or denied access to a nation that welcomes all.
Were I an Arab-American detained for no good reason and denied my civil rights because of my ethnicity, I'd be furious. I'd raise Cain, write op-eds and maybe even file a lawsuit. And then, very quietly, I'd thank Allah that I live in the U.S., where such protests are encouraged and where a citizen can sue his own government.
However much we might wish otherwise, we're locked into this defensive mode for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, everyone is entitled to think and say what he pleases. The same free speech that permits dissent -- and controversial cartoons -- also allows fools to out themselves.
Surely even the Saudis see the true picture -- that Al Gore is a bitter politician who, sadly, seems to be one slice short of a loaf these days.
Kathleen Parker can be reached at kparker@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5202.
Here is just one of the many reasons that I thank God for not allowing Al Gore to be president of the United States of America. It was bad enough that he spent 8 years as the VP; good thing he was overshadowed by all of his boss's scandals and nothing he thought or stood for was ever considered. Perhaps the lesser of two evils.
Jamey Green
_____________________________________________________________________________________
February 15, 2006
Al Gore: International Man of Mystery
By Tom Bevan
And so the saga of Al Gore continues. Gore seems to have tired of giving his regularly scheduled harangue of the Bush administration to domestic audiences, because this week he took his podium-pounding show on the road. On Sunday at a major international economic forum in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Gore decried the treatment of Arabs in the United States after September 11, telling the crowd that many had been “indiscriminately rounded up” and “held in conditions that were just unforgivable." Gore criticized America’s current visa policy as “thoughtless” and “a mistake” and then apologized for the “terrible abuses” Arabs have suffered in America since 9/11.
This is a new twist on a recurring theme. We’ve gotten used to some – usually the Hollywood set – berating the United States from the enlightened confines of Western Europe. We’ve seen low ranking elected liberals like Jim McDermott of Washington and David Bonior of Michigan show up on enemy soil in Iraq to denounce the United States. And we’ve also watched members of the Democratic leadership at home compare the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet Gulags.
But Gore’s remarks set a new standard. Al Gore is the former Vice President of the United States and one of the most recognizable American political figures in the world. His accusation of the “indiscriminate” abuse of Arabs in the United States is disgracefully irresponsible not only because it is a grotesque misrepresentation of fact but because it was delivered in the country that is the epicenter of extremist Wahabbism, and the home of Osama bin Laden as well as 15 of the 19 hijackers responsible for killing more than 3,000 innocent Americans four and half years ago.
As with most things in politics and diplomacy, context is everything. Gore didn’t need to fly half way around the world to apologize to Muslims living, working and going to school in America after 9/11. And if Gore believed America’s treatment of Muslims after September 11 to be so shameful, why hadn’t he made it the centerpiece of one of the numerous, widely covered speeches he’s given in the last few years?
But the bigger mystery is this: did Gore really think his comments were beneficial to the United States of America? Was he putting the interests of his country first? Did he believe making an exaggerated claim of U.S. abuse of Muslims and then apologizing for it on Middle Eastern soil would somehow help build goodwill for the United States in the Islamic world?
To the contrary, the damage done by Gore’s willingness to stand in the heart of the Islamic world and confirm the most deeply held fears and prejudices of Muslims against the United States by grossly exaggerating the treatment of Arabs after 9/11 far outweighs any goodwill he may have generated with an apology.
There has to be another calculation involved: namely, that Gore was trying to build goodwill for himself (both in the Muslim world and with crucial constituencies at home) by claiming rampant abuse of Muslims in America and then offering a personal apology. Simply put, Gore took the opportunity to make himself look good by making his country look bad.
And what about the substance of what Gore said on America’s current visa policy? Last month he ripped the Bush administration over a program designed to eavesdrop on conversations between suspected terrorists overseas and persons in the United States. Now Gore bemoans the tighter restrictions placed on visitors traveling to the United States from countries that have a higher likelihood of producing terrorists.
Gore is against eavesdropping on potential terrorist communications and he’s against tighter screens for visitors originating from Islamic countries. So exactly what would America’s national security policy look like under a Gore administration? For the sake of the country, that’s one mystery best left unsolved.
Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics
Jamey Green
_____________________________________________________________________________________
February 15, 2006
Al Gore: International Man of Mystery
By Tom Bevan
And so the saga of Al Gore continues. Gore seems to have tired of giving his regularly scheduled harangue of the Bush administration to domestic audiences, because this week he took his podium-pounding show on the road. On Sunday at a major international economic forum in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Gore decried the treatment of Arabs in the United States after September 11, telling the crowd that many had been “indiscriminately rounded up” and “held in conditions that were just unforgivable." Gore criticized America’s current visa policy as “thoughtless” and “a mistake” and then apologized for the “terrible abuses” Arabs have suffered in America since 9/11.
This is a new twist on a recurring theme. We’ve gotten used to some – usually the Hollywood set – berating the United States from the enlightened confines of Western Europe. We’ve seen low ranking elected liberals like Jim McDermott of Washington and David Bonior of Michigan show up on enemy soil in Iraq to denounce the United States. And we’ve also watched members of the Democratic leadership at home compare the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet Gulags.
But Gore’s remarks set a new standard. Al Gore is the former Vice President of the United States and one of the most recognizable American political figures in the world. His accusation of the “indiscriminate” abuse of Arabs in the United States is disgracefully irresponsible not only because it is a grotesque misrepresentation of fact but because it was delivered in the country that is the epicenter of extremist Wahabbism, and the home of Osama bin Laden as well as 15 of the 19 hijackers responsible for killing more than 3,000 innocent Americans four and half years ago.
As with most things in politics and diplomacy, context is everything. Gore didn’t need to fly half way around the world to apologize to Muslims living, working and going to school in America after 9/11. And if Gore believed America’s treatment of Muslims after September 11 to be so shameful, why hadn’t he made it the centerpiece of one of the numerous, widely covered speeches he’s given in the last few years?
But the bigger mystery is this: did Gore really think his comments were beneficial to the United States of America? Was he putting the interests of his country first? Did he believe making an exaggerated claim of U.S. abuse of Muslims and then apologizing for it on Middle Eastern soil would somehow help build goodwill for the United States in the Islamic world?
To the contrary, the damage done by Gore’s willingness to stand in the heart of the Islamic world and confirm the most deeply held fears and prejudices of Muslims against the United States by grossly exaggerating the treatment of Arabs after 9/11 far outweighs any goodwill he may have generated with an apology.
There has to be another calculation involved: namely, that Gore was trying to build goodwill for himself (both in the Muslim world and with crucial constituencies at home) by claiming rampant abuse of Muslims in America and then offering a personal apology. Simply put, Gore took the opportunity to make himself look good by making his country look bad.
And what about the substance of what Gore said on America’s current visa policy? Last month he ripped the Bush administration over a program designed to eavesdrop on conversations between suspected terrorists overseas and persons in the United States. Now Gore bemoans the tighter restrictions placed on visitors traveling to the United States from countries that have a higher likelihood of producing terrorists.
Gore is against eavesdropping on potential terrorist communications and he’s against tighter screens for visitors originating from Islamic countries. So exactly what would America’s national security policy look like under a Gore administration? For the sake of the country, that’s one mystery best left unsolved.
Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics
Saturday, February 04, 2006
The difference many times between what republicans do with news and what democrats do with news lies in their overall philosophy on life.
Dems; If they don't like whats happening, they make something else up they do like and say it over and over in every newspaper and on every network.
If they do like whats happening, they make up something to convince people that democrats actually did something good and say it over and over in every newspaper and on every network.
Rep; If they don't like whats happening, they come up with a plan that can actually make things better and forget to counter plan for the lies that will be told about there plan.
If they do like whats happening, they sit quietly and let it work and fell to defend themselves from vicious attacks on fabricated accusations.
Just my observation.
Please read this next article.
Jamey Green
_____________________________________________________________________________________
February 4, 2006
The Silence of the Good News
By Lawrence Kudlow
Economic pessimists have had a field day ever since GDP was reported a week ago at only 1.1 percent for the fourth quarter. But the latest jobs report released on Friday blew them out of the water. Including revisions, January employment is a huge 317,000 above the initial December level. In fact, over the past three months, non-farm payrolls have increased an average 229,000 per month. That’s explosive. We’re on pace for another 2 million jobs in 2006, following gains of 2 million in 2004 and 2005. Wages are also picking up steam, and with gasoline prices falling, consumer purchasing power and retail sales are climbing.
So the question for the Bush Administration is this: What are you waiting for?
As soon as the breakout employment news was released, Salesman-in-Chief George W. Bush should have been in the Rose Garden giving it air time. He should have declared that jobs have continued to grow big time while the unemployment rate has fallen -- all the way down to 4.7 percent. He then could have used this optimistic data to build his already strong case for extending the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. These 2003 tax cuts, along with lower income taxes, are a good reason why jobs numbers are strong and the economy is prosperous.
What are they waiting for?
In his State of the Union message, Bush noted that recent tax relief has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families -- money that has been used to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth. People will spend their money more wisely than government will.
Bush ought to keep this drumbeat up. On Friday, the drums were deafeningly silent.
The latest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office show a clear supply-side effect where lower tax rates and higher after-tax rewards for work and investment have expanded the economy and created a huge surge of tax collections. Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association first reported that actual revenues from the lower capital-gains tax rate came in $46 billion higher over the last three fiscal years and $62 billion higher over the last three calendar years than congressional estimates. The Laffer curve is alive and well.
The naysayers are always quick to pounce on low-growth glitches in the economy, such as the Hurricane Katrina-induced GDP report for the fourth quarter. But a glitch is just a glitch. The greater reality is that the economy is growing nicely, jobs are being created, wages are rising, profits are strong, and productivity trends are excellent.
Good news is all over this still very new year. The “January effect” -- the traditional January stock market rally that follows the traditional December sell-off -- was the best since 1999. Same-store retail sales in January beat all projections with a 5.2 percent yearly gain. Car sales have had a nice comeback. And consumer confidence has now increased for three straight months.
Even wages are coming online. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average weekly earnings are up 3.6 percent year-on-year. That’s the best since 2000. Then there’s the personal-income proxy derived from hours worked multiplied by wages. This measure registered a 6 percent gain in the year ending January, way up from 4.5 percent last October. With retail gasoline prices coming down 23 percent last fall, from $3.07 to $2.36, real wages are on the rise.
Pessimists can obsess about a mild housing slowdown, but expanding businesses and jobs are throwing off plenty of income. If only the president would jump on all this positive economic data, the pessimists would be exposed as data-deprived, hyperbolic, and just plain wrong. More, by truly seizing the economic moment, he would strengthen his case for tax-cut extensions. Right now, he doesn’t yet have the votes in the Senate. The battle must be joined.
Additionally, the Bush administration has just requested another $70 billion for the battlefronts of Iraq and Afghanistan, another $18 billion for Gulf Coast recovery, and $2.3 billion in case the Avian Flu epidemic ever arrives. This is essential spending, but it is also essential that budget makers dig deep for spending offsets. A $400 billion budget-deficit estimate will politically damage the tax-cut case. New House Majority Leader John Boehner must really get moving on the road to budget reform.
If there is no turnaround, overspending and headline deficits will politically crowd out the vital tax-cut extensions that are so necessary to investor, business, and consumer confidence.
The supply-side economic growth plan is working. But the governing GOP coalition must close the circle on budget restraint. Economic growth and Republican political longevity depend on it. The president must do his part by turning up the volume on the good-news economic data.
Dems; If they don't like whats happening, they make something else up they do like and say it over and over in every newspaper and on every network.
If they do like whats happening, they make up something to convince people that democrats actually did something good and say it over and over in every newspaper and on every network.
Rep; If they don't like whats happening, they come up with a plan that can actually make things better and forget to counter plan for the lies that will be told about there plan.
If they do like whats happening, they sit quietly and let it work and fell to defend themselves from vicious attacks on fabricated accusations.
Just my observation.
Please read this next article.
Jamey Green
_____________________________________________________________________________________
February 4, 2006
The Silence of the Good News
By Lawrence Kudlow
Economic pessimists have had a field day ever since GDP was reported a week ago at only 1.1 percent for the fourth quarter. But the latest jobs report released on Friday blew them out of the water. Including revisions, January employment is a huge 317,000 above the initial December level. In fact, over the past three months, non-farm payrolls have increased an average 229,000 per month. That’s explosive. We’re on pace for another 2 million jobs in 2006, following gains of 2 million in 2004 and 2005. Wages are also picking up steam, and with gasoline prices falling, consumer purchasing power and retail sales are climbing.
So the question for the Bush Administration is this: What are you waiting for?
As soon as the breakout employment news was released, Salesman-in-Chief George W. Bush should have been in the Rose Garden giving it air time. He should have declared that jobs have continued to grow big time while the unemployment rate has fallen -- all the way down to 4.7 percent. He then could have used this optimistic data to build his already strong case for extending the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. These 2003 tax cuts, along with lower income taxes, are a good reason why jobs numbers are strong and the economy is prosperous.
What are they waiting for?
In his State of the Union message, Bush noted that recent tax relief has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families -- money that has been used to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth. People will spend their money more wisely than government will.
Bush ought to keep this drumbeat up. On Friday, the drums were deafeningly silent.
The latest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office show a clear supply-side effect where lower tax rates and higher after-tax rewards for work and investment have expanded the economy and created a huge surge of tax collections. Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association first reported that actual revenues from the lower capital-gains tax rate came in $46 billion higher over the last three fiscal years and $62 billion higher over the last three calendar years than congressional estimates. The Laffer curve is alive and well.
The naysayers are always quick to pounce on low-growth glitches in the economy, such as the Hurricane Katrina-induced GDP report for the fourth quarter. But a glitch is just a glitch. The greater reality is that the economy is growing nicely, jobs are being created, wages are rising, profits are strong, and productivity trends are excellent.
Good news is all over this still very new year. The “January effect” -- the traditional January stock market rally that follows the traditional December sell-off -- was the best since 1999. Same-store retail sales in January beat all projections with a 5.2 percent yearly gain. Car sales have had a nice comeback. And consumer confidence has now increased for three straight months.
Even wages are coming online. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average weekly earnings are up 3.6 percent year-on-year. That’s the best since 2000. Then there’s the personal-income proxy derived from hours worked multiplied by wages. This measure registered a 6 percent gain in the year ending January, way up from 4.5 percent last October. With retail gasoline prices coming down 23 percent last fall, from $3.07 to $2.36, real wages are on the rise.
Pessimists can obsess about a mild housing slowdown, but expanding businesses and jobs are throwing off plenty of income. If only the president would jump on all this positive economic data, the pessimists would be exposed as data-deprived, hyperbolic, and just plain wrong. More, by truly seizing the economic moment, he would strengthen his case for tax-cut extensions. Right now, he doesn’t yet have the votes in the Senate. The battle must be joined.
Additionally, the Bush administration has just requested another $70 billion for the battlefronts of Iraq and Afghanistan, another $18 billion for Gulf Coast recovery, and $2.3 billion in case the Avian Flu epidemic ever arrives. This is essential spending, but it is also essential that budget makers dig deep for spending offsets. A $400 billion budget-deficit estimate will politically damage the tax-cut case. New House Majority Leader John Boehner must really get moving on the road to budget reform.
If there is no turnaround, overspending and headline deficits will politically crowd out the vital tax-cut extensions that are so necessary to investor, business, and consumer confidence.
The supply-side economic growth plan is working. But the governing GOP coalition must close the circle on budget restraint. Economic growth and Republican political longevity depend on it. The president must do his part by turning up the volume on the good-news economic data.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
CIA Head Slams Wiretapping Disclosure
US intelligence officials told Congress Thursday that disclosure of once-secret projects like President George W. Bush's no-warrant eavesdropping program have undermined their work.
"The damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission," CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing disclosures about a variety of CIA programs that he suggested might have been compromised.
Goss said a federal grand jury should be impaneled to determine "who is leaking this information."
The Bush program, which he ordered shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, was brought to light by The New York Times in mid-December and has caused a continuing controversy within the Washington establishment. That first story, and others written since, relied on unidentified sources from within the Bush administration.
Democratic members of the intelligence panel accused the Bush administration Thursday of wanting to have it both ways.
"The president has not only confirmed the existence of the program, he has spoken at length about it repeatedly" while keeping Congress in the dark, said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the panel's senior Democrat.
Rockefeller suggested that such "leaks" most likely "came from the executive branch" of the government.
That brought a terse response from FBI Director Robert Mueller, who said, "It's not fair to point a finger as to the responsibility of the leak."
In the weeks since the leak, the president and other senior administration officials have publicly defended the eavesdropping, but the full Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to be briefed on it, CBS News correspondent David Martin reports.
The sometimes pointed exchanges came as leaders of the nation's intelligence agencies appeared before the panel rare public session (raw video) to give a rundown on threats facing the world.
Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss asked the intelligence officials at the witness table "whether or not our position has been compromised" by publicity surrounding the program. John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, and his principal deputy, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, agreed that it had.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The ridiculous left dems want it both ways themselves; They want the focus to be on Bush and the ficticious claim that he illegally seeks wire taps on international calls, not on the fact that someone illegally leaked the classified info. But, not so long ago, they wanted the focus of the Valerie Plame saga to be on the leak of her identity, not on the fact that she was in no danger or not involved in any covert operation at the time nor had she been in several years. Because of this it was merely a technicality of the law and not involving national security or her safety whatsoever. (remember, no malice is yet to be found on this)
This really shows where their priorities lie. It not only reveals some very disturbing truths about their agenda, it reveals their deep burning desire to risk national security for a single straw of political hay.
-Jamey Green
US intelligence officials told Congress Thursday that disclosure of once-secret projects like President George W. Bush's no-warrant eavesdropping program have undermined their work.
"The damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission," CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing disclosures about a variety of CIA programs that he suggested might have been compromised.
Goss said a federal grand jury should be impaneled to determine "who is leaking this information."
The Bush program, which he ordered shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, was brought to light by The New York Times in mid-December and has caused a continuing controversy within the Washington establishment. That first story, and others written since, relied on unidentified sources from within the Bush administration.
Democratic members of the intelligence panel accused the Bush administration Thursday of wanting to have it both ways.
"The president has not only confirmed the existence of the program, he has spoken at length about it repeatedly" while keeping Congress in the dark, said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the panel's senior Democrat.
Rockefeller suggested that such "leaks" most likely "came from the executive branch" of the government.
That brought a terse response from FBI Director Robert Mueller, who said, "It's not fair to point a finger as to the responsibility of the leak."
In the weeks since the leak, the president and other senior administration officials have publicly defended the eavesdropping, but the full Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to be briefed on it, CBS News correspondent David Martin reports.
The sometimes pointed exchanges came as leaders of the nation's intelligence agencies appeared before the panel rare public session (raw video) to give a rundown on threats facing the world.
Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss asked the intelligence officials at the witness table "whether or not our position has been compromised" by publicity surrounding the program. John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, and his principal deputy, Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, agreed that it had.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The ridiculous left dems want it both ways themselves; They want the focus to be on Bush and the ficticious claim that he illegally seeks wire taps on international calls, not on the fact that someone illegally leaked the classified info. But, not so long ago, they wanted the focus of the Valerie Plame saga to be on the leak of her identity, not on the fact that she was in no danger or not involved in any covert operation at the time nor had she been in several years. Because of this it was merely a technicality of the law and not involving national security or her safety whatsoever. (remember, no malice is yet to be found on this)
This really shows where their priorities lie. It not only reveals some very disturbing truths about their agenda, it reveals their deep burning desire to risk national security for a single straw of political hay.
-Jamey Green
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Couple Get Prison in Chili Finger Case
By KIM CURTIS, AP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN JOSE, Calif. (Jan. 18) - A couple who planted a severed finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili in a scheme to extort money from the fast-food chain were sentenced Wednesday to prison terms of at least nine years.
Anna Ayala, 40, who said she bit into the digit, was sentenced to nine years. Her husband, Jaime Plascencia, 44, who obtained the finger from a co-worker who lost it in a workplace accident, was sentenced to more than 12 years.
"Greed and avarice overtook this couple," said Superior Court Judge Edward Davila, adding that the pair had "lost their moral compass."
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The judge in this case probably did what should have been done. These two nuts cost Wendy's millions. Had they not been found out, they would have gladly taken the spoils of their conspiracy and went about their business.
But, the judge makes a comment; "Greed and avarice overtook this couple" "they lost their moral compass."
While I agree whole heartedly with his opinion on this couple, I would like to hear his opinion on the moral compass of the Vermont judge that recently made national headlines with his surprising sentence of only 60 days behind bars for a confessed child sex offender that had confessed to repeated offenses over a four year period.
His victim was sexually abused from age six until age ten.
The moral compass of the offender is not a question in my mind, but a judge, who is educated, who knows very well the repeat offender statistics of sex offenders and who knows the rehab statistics of sex offenders, who well knows that the most recent child rape and murder cases were perpetrated by repeat offenders that should have been behind bars themselves, does bring some question as to the direction that his own moral compass is pointing.
I wonder if this "finger in the chili" couple may have gotten their compass out of line by observing some of the following;
-Modern politics in all of its glory, from the white washing of the "white water" to the definition on national television as to the true meaning of sexual relations.
-O.J. Simpson and his antics (not guilty in criminal court but guilty in civil court)
-Michael Jackson (now had his trial not gone his way, he may have been able to apply president Clintons definition of sex and been exonerated anyway) I mean we have determined that he was ok in sleeping with young boys, fondling young boys, undressing in front of young boys and watching young boys undress right. The actual sex thing was the only wrong thing in question; right? I'm still confused. One more question; Its ok to do all of that in person, you just can't look at those things on the internet, right?
-John Kerry pictured slinging his military medals into the river, then saying he didn't do that, then saying he was in Cambodia later to remember that he was never in Cambodia, then voting for the War and not voting for the war, then running for president of this country. (only in America)
-Ted Kennedy on any committee to question anyone else's morals.
This is certainly just a few headlines among hundreds that could easily bring a moral compass into question.
-Jamey Green
By KIM CURTIS, AP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAN JOSE, Calif. (Jan. 18) - A couple who planted a severed finger in a bowl of Wendy's chili in a scheme to extort money from the fast-food chain were sentenced Wednesday to prison terms of at least nine years.
Anna Ayala, 40, who said she bit into the digit, was sentenced to nine years. Her husband, Jaime Plascencia, 44, who obtained the finger from a co-worker who lost it in a workplace accident, was sentenced to more than 12 years.
"Greed and avarice overtook this couple," said Superior Court Judge Edward Davila, adding that the pair had "lost their moral compass."
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The judge in this case probably did what should have been done. These two nuts cost Wendy's millions. Had they not been found out, they would have gladly taken the spoils of their conspiracy and went about their business.
But, the judge makes a comment; "Greed and avarice overtook this couple" "they lost their moral compass."
While I agree whole heartedly with his opinion on this couple, I would like to hear his opinion on the moral compass of the Vermont judge that recently made national headlines with his surprising sentence of only 60 days behind bars for a confessed child sex offender that had confessed to repeated offenses over a four year period.
His victim was sexually abused from age six until age ten.
The moral compass of the offender is not a question in my mind, but a judge, who is educated, who knows very well the repeat offender statistics of sex offenders and who knows the rehab statistics of sex offenders, who well knows that the most recent child rape and murder cases were perpetrated by repeat offenders that should have been behind bars themselves, does bring some question as to the direction that his own moral compass is pointing.
I wonder if this "finger in the chili" couple may have gotten their compass out of line by observing some of the following;
-Modern politics in all of its glory, from the white washing of the "white water" to the definition on national television as to the true meaning of sexual relations.
-O.J. Simpson and his antics (not guilty in criminal court but guilty in civil court)
-Michael Jackson (now had his trial not gone his way, he may have been able to apply president Clintons definition of sex and been exonerated anyway) I mean we have determined that he was ok in sleeping with young boys, fondling young boys, undressing in front of young boys and watching young boys undress right. The actual sex thing was the only wrong thing in question; right? I'm still confused. One more question; Its ok to do all of that in person, you just can't look at those things on the internet, right?
-John Kerry pictured slinging his military medals into the river, then saying he didn't do that, then saying he was in Cambodia later to remember that he was never in Cambodia, then voting for the War and not voting for the war, then running for president of this country. (only in America)
-Ted Kennedy on any committee to question anyone else's morals.
This is certainly just a few headlines among hundreds that could easily bring a moral compass into question.
-Jamey Green
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)