A Terrorist By Any Other Name …
In a thought provoking piece published in this morning’s Reuters, Columnist Bernd Debusmann articulates what is for many Americans an overwhelming source of frustration. “The Islamic terrorists of the Bush era are gone. They have been replaced by violent extremists in a purge of the American government’s political lexicon.” Debusmann explains, “ … To some, this omission amounts to a dangerous failure to deal with the root of the problem, evidence of a mind-set determined to avoid the appearance of anti-Muslim bias even if that endangers national security.” How strongly the terrorist attacks of the last decade are connected with fundamental Islamic beliefs is, on its surface, a question of supreme significance; Islamic terrorism is an expression of either (a) a minority who has twisted their otherwise pure beliefs to fit a xenophobic paradigm, or (b) a fundamental tenant of the Islamic faith. If the answer is (b) (which it is not), then the war on terror is, in fact, a war on Islam. However, if the answer is (a) (which it is), than any allusion to (b) will only frustrate and alienate otherwise peaceful Muslims. Such a misrepresentation is as erroneous to the association of Conservatives with White Supremacists. While a large majority of members from both groups share the common religion of Christianity, their individual interpretations couldn’t be more polarized. The current and past administrations alike have wisely chosen to divert attention from Islam as a whole, and refocus it on those extremist sects that are actually responsible for the war we now fight.
Socially Insecure
Paul Volcker was quoted, in this morning’s Bloomberg, as saying that “Social Security is the bedrock of any retirement policy in this country …”. Such a statement hardly comes as a surprise, considering Mr. Volcker’s position as chairman of the President’s Economic Recover Advisory Board. Nevertheless, to anyone who has studied the empirical evidence available, a persistent faith in any program as broken as Social Security is far more blind and zealous than any religious dogma. To illustrate, the current Social security tax rate is somewhere around 6.2% for all Americans earning under $97,000 (Which means almost 90% of all americans). What most people don’t know is that employer’s must match their employee’s contribution. At an annual income of $50,000, $6,200 goes to Social Security–over $500 per month. Now, assuming that one works from age 22 (the average age of college graduation) until 65, we’re looking at a total contribution of $266,600–assuming income never increases. Even if our imaginary earner were to live until 100, and assuming that her money was not invested, but rather tucked away in a vault, her monthly return, evenly distributed over the course of her life should be somewhere in the ballpark of $2,666 without taking inflation into account. But alas, under the current system, her return would be much, much lower (approximately $1,083). Why? Because nothing in life is free. Someone must pay the bureaucracy. And we all know that bureaucracies don’t come cheap.
Green Government
An article published last night in Politico bears the title “Reid woos Scott Brown on jobs bill”. Scott Brown? Jobs bill? But isn’t the idea of a jobs bill–a cute name for more government subsidies and bailouts–diametrically opposed to the fundamental principles of the conservative movement? If the answer is yes–and it is–one may be left wondering if conservatism is totally opposed to government intervention in industries like education, healthcare, energy, finance, etc. And what about welfare programs? Does conservatism require that the government take a hands off approach to public charity? While it is true that some conservatives disagree with any government interference that extends beyond defense, most would agree that local and state governments should take a very active role in regulating, subsidizing, and overseeing many industries. What unites all conservatives, and defines the movement as a whole, rather, is the simple axiom that the Federal Government should not involve itself in any social program. Leave that stuff to the states, and limit the Federal Government to those powers articulated by the constitution, sans the erroneous meaning that modern poli-sci’s have applied (no, the regulation of commerce among the several states is not an infinite grant of power–it means exactly what it says and nothing more). The result is a cleaner, greener government that does more on less. In other words, if liberalism is the political equivalent of a twelve cylinder lamborghini, conservatism is a prius.
More of The Same
Politico reports that, In a few hours, President Obama will speak on the economic effects of last year’s stimulus package. We can expect to hear how the stimulus is responsible for creating jobs, restoring confidence in the stock market, and saving the economy from catastrophic ruin. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MONOLITHIC INCREASE IN NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT FROM 8% TO 10%. No, things are peachy keen here in the Republic. In fact, what we really need is more government spending. Paul Davidson, author of The Keynes Solution, reviewed in this morning’s Bloomberg seems to think so. And faithful readers of the New York Times may be led to believe that the Keynesian touch is more than necessary after reading an article condoning the argument that stimulus spending may be “the most cost-effective way for the government to create jobs.” Lest we forget, an article in today’s Wallstreet Journal reminds us that the “Bulk of Stimulus Spending [Is[ Yet To Come.” It’s as if the current administration is out to scientifically prove Einstein’s theory that Insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Set It Off
This morning, The New York Times published one of the most intellectually honest pieces to appear on its front page in a long time. The five page essay, written by David Barstow, chronicles the rise of what has now become almost universally known as the Tea Party. He describes the movement as “a political reordering that would drastically shrink the federal government and sweep away not just Mr. Obama, but much of the Republican establishment, starting with Senator John McCain.” While admitting that the movement is still young, and lacking in political unity, he explains that there does exist uniform agreement on many issues. “Tea Party gatherings are full of people who say they would do away with the Federal Reserve, the federal income tax and countless agencies, not to mention bailouts and stimulus packages. Nor is it unusual to hear calls to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.” Mr. Barstow’s essay accurately identifies the Tea Party as a collective recognition that the Federal Government should be limited to those few powers enumerated by the constitution, and that great myth that Social Security, Medicare, The Department of Education, and all their sibling social programs are nothing more than an extension of Congress’s duty to regulate commerce must be dispensed with. Hats off.
Hell Under Seige
Reuters reports that the offensive targeting Marjah (or Marjeh, for all those google mappers reading this), a small town in the southern province of Helmand, has been, and continues to be highly successful. Marine Captain Abraham Sipe is quoted as saying “We are making steady progress …”, and a slightly more enthusiastic Helmand Governor Gulab Mangai has stated that “[t]he situation moment by moment is going the way the government had expected. The forces are extending their advances from points they have captured and the operation is going on successfully …” It seems the Afghani’s are kinda’ fired up about defending their newfound freedom. Maybe that crazy cowboy strategy of invading terrorist-funding regimes in order to replace tyrannical dictatorships with free, republican forms of government isn’t such a bad one after all. So much for a quagmire.
Healthier Care
In an op-ed for today’s New York Times, Paul Krugman criticized Republican support for Medicare as hypocritical. He’s correct. An argument that condemns a federal takeover of the healthcare industry (let’s be clear about what’s really going on here), while at the same time defending Medicare, is as principally sound as a vegan cannibal. It just doesn’t make sense. All that whining about the lack of bipartisan cooperation is downright pathetic. The real problem isn’t the way that we’re reforming healthcare, the real problem is that we’re reforming healthcare at all. If we truly want better healthcare, we must cut regulations and restore freedom to both doctors and patients alike.
The Virtue of International Disinterest
Tens of thousands filled Tehran’s streets today in celebration of the 31st anniversary of Iranian independence. Bloomberg reports that “security forces clashed with opposition leaders and protesters who used the occasion to defy the government.” That’s a nice way of saying that forward-thinking Iranians were oppressed, and possibly murdered–“[s]ecurity forces fired guns and used tear gas in a square in west Tehran where demonstrators were gathered,”–at the hands of Uncle Ahma’s thugs. For many, the growing insurrection among the Iranian people provides support and justification for a U.S. invasion of the nearly nuclear regime. But, of course, such a suggestion is met on both sides of the political spectrum by cries of imprudence. After all, historical precedent–from The Monroe Doctrine to The U.N. Charter–requires that we americans remain neutral in all foreign affairs that do not have a direct impact on our own national interest. In other words, it is immoral for us to aid an oppressed people in revolting from their xenophobic butcher-tyrant. Forget the fact that millions of our brothers and sisters across the globe suffer daily under the heel of political oppression. We have our own concerns to worry about. Like Healthcare. Or Public Education. Or Social Security. Sound selfish? That’s because it is. It’s also probably not the kind of attitude that either Monroe or Roosevelt had in mind.
Death and Taxes A La Greek
In an attempt to have their Baklava, and eat it too, Reuters reports that Greece will be implementing a new tax policy that, while conservative on its face, actually increases taxes for all citizens making over €30,000, the equivalent of approximately $41,000. Now, while critiques of the critiques may point to the Finance Minister’s claim that “about 95 percent of individual tax filings report incomes below 30,000 euros …”, as evidence that a tax increase couldn’t hurt all that much, the truth of the matter is that a tax increase on the few who actually fund the economy and treasury can only mean bad news for the future. Increased taxes on the productive chase away the productive. As taxes rise, business owners will be forced to either cut corners or close shop. Investors will look elsewhere, and the Greek economy will keel over and die. What would Aristotle say?
The Enlightened Climatologist
It’s 10:40 on a Tuesday morning. I should be at school, preparing for my afternoon class on Constitutional Law, but instead, I’m at home, bundled in blankets, and sipping hot cocoa. The reason for today’s absence can be seen from my window. The Arlington/D.C. metropolis has been covered in two feet of snow and, with the exception of a few auxiliary government agencies, and some scattered restaurants and shops, the city has been sound asleep since Friday afternoon. The clouds gathering overhead promise more of the same, and many of my classmates are wondering whether it would have been wiser to take an early spring break. After all, February flights to the Bahamas are comparatively cheap. However, for the politically interested, this Narnian-esque winter holds broader implications than an excuse to play hooky. The Wall Street Journal published a blog last night on the irony of a recent announcement that the NOAA–one of many bureaucracies designed to tell us what to think–would be providing information on “earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons …” The blog follows on the heels of an article published in Saturday’s Daily Telegraph that chronicles a host of errors in a recent report from The United Nation’s panel on climate change, and reveals that glaciers may not be an endangered species after all. Not everything, it appears, is quite as settled as we’ve been led to believe. The Enlightened Climatologist may not be so enlightened after all.
