Tu quoque, Barack, tu quoque?!?!?!

Within the world of politics, especially in Presidential politics, every move, every word, every action is a setup for scrutiny or condemnation from detractors. The significant amount of the opinions expressed by critics of Presidents are usually mundane low-brow expressions which are made more for personal gain or as an attempt to validate the critic’s existence than legitimate fault finding. So is the case with the examination of the President’s commentary at the annual National Prayer Breakfast this week.

Here are the President’s remarks which got so many noses out of joints.   

And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

What the President is referencing here is that American’s shouldn't judge the Muslim community as a whole because of the deplorable violence wrought by ISIS. And that as a nation we should remember that our own majority faith, Christianity, has its own long dark history of violence and appalling actions to contend with. Accordingly it is not only wrong, it is factually incorrect to refer to ISIS as "Muslim Extremists."

Now before you think that this is a defense of the President’s commentary or that I am in agreement please…think again. His sophomoric and banal attempt to remind us about ethical standards of judgment is anything but coherent or lucid. On the historical front most of the “facts” as presented by Mr. Obama are anything but actualities. My problem is that most of the criticism of the President's remarks have been in the wrong vein, elucidate the critic's lack of  knowledge on historical events and their context, and they combat the Left's sophistry with crude rhetoric.  

But why worry about all of this and these inane and fallacious comments? Is it really that surprising that Mr. Obama would make comments like these considering his background and the philosophy he admittedly adheres to? The answer is no, I am not worried nor upset about anything he has said. However, this is a truly teachable moment and provides great insight to the style of argumentation which the Left tends to employ in its overall strategy. And why I am highlighting it. 

What The President is doing is invoking the informal logical fallacy of 'Tu quoque' or translated as 'you too'. In other words you discredit your opponent's argument by asserting they have engaged in the same behavior or acted inconsistently in reference to the point which they are defending or making. Subsequently, this method does nothing to address your opponent's position except reject it, not argue against it in logical practice.  For you visual learners here is the argumentative structure provided by RationalWiki.

1.       Person A makes claim X about Person B.

2.       Person B points out that claim X is also true of Person A.

3.       Therefore, X is irrelevant/false and A is a hypocrite.

To combat this you have one of two choices. The first is showing that the argument is unsound or that the two premise don’t lead to the conclusion being drawn. The second is that one of the premise being presented is patently false. Meaning if a premise is shown to be inaccurate then invariably the deduction is incorrect.

Take the Crusades for example. Anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about this time understands that there were two centuries worth of historical context which led to the Church launching its forces into the Middle East. Islamic expansionism against Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire, see the Seljuk Turks, made this necessary and unavoidable.

Do I fault the Muslim states for trying to conquer Western Europe? No…I do not. They were doing what empires do and the Western Church—the only unifying agent in Europe at the time--was doing what it had to do to ensure its survival and expansion. Certainly both sides were as much victims as they were perpetrators. However, this doesn’t fit into Mr. Obama’s narrative. You could also go on about the Inquisition, slavery, and Jim Crow and show these premises to be faulty and hollow as well.

The takeaway here is once you understand the structure of the argument being used against you, then you can combat it effectively. 

Continue reading ...

Barack "Seymour Butts" Obama

Like him or hate him, the President, as most guys do, just enjoys getting to the bottom of things. If you know what I mean?



Of course, most of us don't have her waiting for us when we get done gallivanting around Italy with notorious womanizer and French President, Nicolas Sarkozy.



I wouldn't want to be Barry when he gets back to D.C. I almost feel sorry for him. :)

Obama rear-ending things at the G-8, courtesy of The Drudge Report.

Continue reading ...

More Progressive idol worship, courtesy of the Iranian Revolution.

The Iranian "Green Revolution," as it is being called, certainly has some very complex and often confusing facets to it. But I don't think anyone would have ever expected it to confuse the political ambient here in the States.

Yesterday, Robert Kagan, a neo-conservative foreign policy expert, in his monthly op-ed column for the Washington Post, wrote about the difficulties opposition protests are creating for President Obama and his strategy on dealing with Iran.

Kagan's thoughts on the situation are simple, a return to normalcy within Iran's political structure is key for the Obama plan of directly engaging the Ahmadinejad regime. My own personal feelings aside, Kagan's analysis is not that unbelievable, even though I think this is going to go in quite a different direction than anyone could have guessed.

However what I found rather pathetic was the attempted rebuttal by the Left. I was immensely surprised by the pitiful criticism offered by Johnathan Chait of the New Republic. And of course the other cast of infant talking pointers who never fail to disappoint with their absurd and ridiculous squawking. It seems witless observations are all these folks are worth these days.


On the top of the list is Matthew Yglesias of Think Regress who seems to be very enamored of his "colleague," Matt Duss's appraisal.

Meanwhile, my colleague Matt Duss was on MSNBC yesterday offering a much more reasonable take on Obama’s restrained response:

DUSS: I think the lesson to be learned is the United States’ ability to intervene and change these outcomes is rather limited. As Americans, we like to believe that our ability to move, to promote democracy and to move events in the world at our will is a lot bigger than it actually is. … Right now President Obama’s treatment of the demonstrations going on in Iran is pretty near perfect. He has taken the United States to the extent possible out of this equation, he, the United States, and our role in the Middle East is not — he’s not going to give that to the hard liners as an excuse for an even greater crackdown.

I don't dispute the that Americans tend to overstate our ability to intervene and change outcomes. However, in their attempt to blindly worship the President they have overlooked one small and very significant fact, a usual trait amongst the "intellectual progressives." Here is a photo from Kagan's article.



Notice this little lady's proclamation is in anglais not Iranian, as are many other protesters. It really isn't that hard to figure out that Iranian reformist protesters are sending a message to the West, more specifically the United States, about what they feel is happening to them. If this isn't the case then what are they trying to prove to us, ACORN rigged their election too?

Now please don't mistake this for me trying to make a case for sending in troops or raise the stakes against the Iranian government, but, it does seem to indicate some attempt at outreach to people in America. Nevertheless, the Obama administration is concerned over Ahmadinejad and the crazed Mullah's using any pro-reformist language from his administration as a talking point to prove American interference in domestic Iranian affairs. So, he has remained somewhat quiet on the subject.

Oh darn, Obama didn't have to wait very long for Mahmoud to start spreading that propaganda, now did he?

Another "genius" who misses the point is Taylor Marsh, whose brain has been soaking too long in the boggy topography which shares her surname.

Whatever the Iranian people are doing right now, however heartening it is, it is not a revolution in the sense of a democratic republic. The distinction of what we’d prefer for them, well, that is irrelevant and not for us to decide.

No, it isn't for us to decide, it is not for us to intervene, it is not ours. Does that mean we turn a blind eye and not support the ideals of a people who want to move in a different direction? A people who are obviously reaching out to us for some unknown reason? Does it not demand investigation into why they are doing this or why Mousavi is obviously sanctioning his supporters to proceed with messages in English? Besides, Mahmoud has already jumped the shark with an opening salvo against Obama by invoking American interventionism. I guess these two dolts like to haphazardly dismiss or ignore certain facts to make themselves appear more informed than they are to their brainwashed readership.

Now there is also this little find. courtesy of Foreign Policy Magazine. Just say it is straight from the Persian horse's mouth. This is an excerpt from FP's interview with Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Mousavi's external spokesman.

Foreign Policy: You were involved in the 1979 Iranian Revolution as a young man, and your films have touched on it extensively. What parallels do you see between then and today's situation?

Mohsen Makhmalbaf: There are some similarities and some differences. In both situations, people were in the streets. In the [earlier] revolution, there were young people in the streets who were not as modern as the people are today. And they were in the streets following the lead of a leader, a mullah -- in those times Ayatollah Khomeini. Now, the young people in the streets are more modern: They use SMS; they use the Internet. And they are not being actually led by anyone, but they are connected to each other.

These young people who are in the streets are looking for peace and democracy. The previous revolution was a revolution of traditionalism against modernism; but now this is a revolution of modernism against traditionalism. The previous revolution had a frown; this one has a smile on its face. The previous revolution was red; this one is green. We can say that this is a 21st-century revolution, but the other was a 20th-century revolution. That revolution was led by the people who were educated by the epoch of the shah, and this generation was brought up by the mullahs inside the Islamic Revolution. We have many young people, and maturity is killing the fathers. In each generation, we kill our fathers. And our fathers [today] are the mullahs.

This is not about Mousavi, Ahmadinejad, or the Supreme Leader, it as about what the people in Iran want. This is about enough people, on their own accord and not bused in by the government, demonstrating against what they feel is a repressive and tyrannical regime. A regime which will not allow a country, who two thirds of its population in under 30, to mature on its own.

Please let me reiterate that I am not advocating military intervention or hostile sanctions against Iran. Just the Obama administration letting the people of Iran know we get it and are with them and their personal quest for against freedom to grow on their own. Not stick our heads in the sand like frightened little children who are fearful of ever making a decision.

Continue reading ...

Obama Health Care Pep Rally

The Obama administration has called for a pep rally in the East Room of the White House for nationalized health care on June 24th. A tailgate rally will be held simultaneously in the White House Blue Room which, will be hosted by ABC's Charlie Gibson. Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS-statist propaganda-from the Blue Room.

Sounds pretty fun doesn't it? Too bad it's reality. From The Drudge Report.

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

Love that no opposition thing. Here is the opposition asking ABC News why their voice's will not be heard.

From the Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay to ABC.

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

I am a HUGE fan of comedic irony and it doesn't get anymore ironic than our very own Supreme Leader tearing a page from recent events in Iran. Want to talk about some government sponsored propaganda?

Pro-government demonstrators celebrated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election at a rally organised by the country's Islamic regime, which earlier offered to recount some disputed ballots.

And they have a no opposition policy also.

The government has barred foreign media from covering rallies in Tehran - even the state-organised demonstration, where government officials urged the crowd not to let the election divide the nation.

Funny how tyrannical minds and propagandists from different cultures think alike.

Continue reading ...

Possible Economic Recovery Tied to Obama Stimulus Package?

Well the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) has released its monthly jobless claims report. In May, nonfarm payroll employment fell by 345,000, increasing the national unemployment rate to 9.4%.

Despite being the highest unemployment faced in this country in about 25 years, there is a little good news. Last month's jobless report --which is actually the measurement of the job loss in April--showed nonfarm payroll falling by 504,000. A difference of 159,000 jobs "saved" in a one month period.

All that stimulus must be the reason! Try again.

First off, what is a stimulus package supposed to accomplish? Well, as the name indicates it is suppose to stimulate or excite to greater activity, in economic terms at least. By definition as an equilibrating mechanism the stimulus should work instantaneously, but often they don't. This is exactly the case with the President's stimulus package which he signed into law back in February.

As it stands about $44 billion, out of $135 billion, has been paid out since the the bill was made law. From Recovery.gov.


Click on image to enlarge.

With trillions vaporized over the past months, it is difficult for a reasonable mind to fathom the concept that spending a mere $44 billion has actually "primed the pump" and caused the beginnings of an economic turnaround.

This brings me to this little golden nugget of information provided by the CBO (Congressional Budgetary Office). I am sure that over the coming days there might be an argument, or not, concerning the effects of the stimulus package on the beginnings of this "recovery." However this report actually highlights the lag effect of the stimulus spending and is an attempt to convince Beltway dwelling pols to speed up access to money so the turnaround can "begin.".

Although, I find it highly ironic that the jobless report is indicating the start of economic recovery without much assistance, if any at all, from the stimulus package. And here they are trying to get money out the door more rapidly. All in the name of starting a recovery, which is evidently happening on its own. On to the CBO report.

These first two PDF slides are quite enlightening about the attitude of policy makers and pols in the Beltway as the debate raged from mid-December to mid-February about what to do.






More specifically, it's the last sentence of each of these slides that really highlight the fear and angst that was raging in Washington over the looming economic catastrophe. Keyword to all of this is "perception." This opened the door for Mr. Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste and his cronies to get their flawed economic policies pushed through Congress like a greased pig.

Now the economic arguments that we will eventually hear from stimulus supporters probably will sound something like this, "Well this turnaround was obviously caused by the AARA and the money it has provided." "Obama's plan is creating or saving jobs!" Again, not exactly.

Slide 4 of 15 tells a little bit different story.



Out of the 24% of the stimulus money allocated for FY 2009, the largest portion of money, 32% to be exact, is going to entitlement programs. More than likely a necessary evil presently, but hardly a stimulant for economic recovery. As you can see this trend also continues from 2009-11 and only gets larger. But, how much to date has actually been spent on "shovel-ready" projects?

Slide 8 of 15.


This chart indicates that to date, less than $10 billion has been spent on infrastructure projects which were going to be the staple for job growth. CNN Money reported in late April that of the $75 billion Congress had made available, about $14.5 billion had been spent, mostly on Medicaid.

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that rampant spending on any sort of entitlement or social programs spur economic growth. With this in mind, then reasonably, there isn't any evidence supporting the claim that Obama stimulus package has stimulated the job growth. Quite to the contrary, if it has stimulated anything it is spending, period.

The strange part to all of this is if I am wrong and stimulus packages do work, it seems that the supposed recovery period we are in right now was spurred by former President Bush's infusion of almost a trillion dollars of liquid capital into the banking and financial communities. How is that for irony?

On a final note, supply-side economist Larry Kudlow, in a National Review Online blog post, makes a poignant argument that if we are in the beginnings of recovery, some serious thought needs to be given to de-TARPing.

Related articles:

NY Times-Joblessness Hits 9.4%, but Slowing Losses Raise Hopes

Innocent Bystanders-The May Unemployment Numbers are Here, and Worse Than Predicted

Fox News-For some good comedy, read what the Vice President had to say about the administration's plan to "speed-up" the economic recovery. If you guessed spending more money, you win the $64 dollar prize.

Continue reading ...

FINALLY!! A modern day Conservative thinker using Edmund Burke as the benchmark for the Obama Presidency.

It would have been a crime, in my own mind, not to run this fantastic article. It has two of my favorite things, politically speaking, it is written by Thomas Sowell, a well respected conservative thinker, economist, and author. And he critiques the Presidency of Barack Obama using thoughts from Sir Edmund Burke, the cornerstone of Anglo-American conservatism. Thought provoking, well written, and extremely cognitive.

From Real Clear Politics.

The other day I sought a respite from current events by re-reading some of the writings of 18th century British statesman Edmund Burke. But it was not nearly as big an escape as I had thought it would be.

When Burke wrote of his apprehension about "new power in new persons," I could not help think of the new powers that have been created by which a new President of the United States -- a man with zero experience in business -- can fire the head of General Motors and tell banks how to run their businesses.

Not only is Barack Obama new to the presidency, he is new to running any organization. One of Burke's fears was that "we may place our confidence in the virtue of those who have never been tried."

Neither eloquence nor zeal was a substitute for experience, according to Burke. He said, "eloquence may exist without a proportionate degree of wisdom." As for zeal, Burke said: "It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion."

The Obama administration's going back and forth on the question whether American intelligence agents who forced information out of captured terrorist leaders will be subjected to legal jeopardy, even though they were told at the time that what they were doing was not only legal but a service to the nation, came to mind when reading Burke's warning about the dangers of continuing to change the rules and values by which people lived.

Burke asked how we could expect a sense of honor to exist when "no man could know what would be the test of honour in a nation, continually varying the standard of its coin?"

This is the sort of conservatism that those within the hierarchy of the GOP should be emulating. Not the detritus and detached corporatist-minded drivel they pass off as political policy and thought. If you are an Independent, Republican, Democrat, or you have not made up your mind, I highly suggest reading anything Edmund Burke has written. But start with Reflections on the French Revolution and go on from there.

His wisdom is so prolific it even makes William F. Buckley's writings look like the scribblings of a kindergartner.

Continue reading ...

Sonia Sotomayor and Legal Opinions on her Nomination

Ask any of this blog's four consistent readers, my Mom, Dad, crazy Uncle Lenny, and my loony, progressive minded, Obama voting Basset hound, and they will tell you that I have the utmost respect for the Supreme Court of the United States and for its members, both liberal and conservative.

This brings me to the point of this post. First off, while I have a rabid fascination with the law, I am not a lawyer nor do I have a desire to sell my soul and become an proselyte of Satan by becoming one. (I do play one on television though.) Subsequently, lawyers and judges are the resident experts on the law and it behooved me to explore their opines on Judge Sotomayor's past rulings to form a more perfect opinion on her nomination. Because this "analysis" involves the Supreme Court, I am taking even greater caution to remain thoughtful and avoid any cognitive dissonance entering into the equation. (That is, a healthy and fair analysis free of any political leanings or contempt for the administration which has appointed her.)

Many an argument has been raised by Sotomayor's detractors as to why the Judge should not be appointed to the SCOUTS. They have ranged from charges of reverse racism due to her comment given at the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001, delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, "Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Or her supposed reputation for a bad temperament, "The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it."

Or as noted in a previous article here at PACT, her idea that federal judges create policy, not interpret the law.

These are minor flags which could indicate a woman whom has tightly restrained her true political disposition and has been very careful not to reveal her thoughts to avoid drumming up any controversy. Controversy which could impede her ambitions and aspirations. It does deserve some thought.

More specifically are her rulings. These are much more indicative of her leanings and attitude towards the law. A person is free to feel as they will about contentious issues. However, there is a very large difference between applying the law and interpreting it. This is a compilation of various law related blogs and the rigorous analysis their authors have provided on a myriad of cases Judge Sotomayor has ruled in or presided over.

ProfessorBanbridge.com-Stephen Bainbridge asks the question as to whether or not Judge Sotomayor is to far out of the mainstream to be confirmed. His conclusion is, no, she isn't.

The Volokoh Conspiracy-Jonathan Adler points out that as far as being anti-business, citing four cases; Merrill Lynch v. Dabit, Knight v. Commissioner, Malesko v. Correctional Services, and Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, the judge shows a lean in this direction. Although it should be noted that Adler does raises the question that it is difficult to determine her overall approach based on a handful of cases.

Patterico's Pontifications- A conservative lawyer based in California, Patterico explains the context of Sotomayor's statement concerning the appellate courts making policy and states that she " worded the concept especially badly." And notes that one silver lining to her appointment is that she is tough in criminal law cases and issues.

ClassActionBlawg.com-Paul Karlsgodt does an exhaustive study into Judge Sotomayor's rulings concerning class action cases and other related litigation, here and here. His final conclusion, "Overall, her decisions on class action issues do not suggest a pro-plaintiff or pro-defense bias. Rather, they seem to reflect a willingness to consider each case on its own merits and to either admit when she has made a mistake or at least be guided by changing circumstances rather than any ridged adherence to a predetermined philosophy or idealogy."

Opino Juris-Julian Ku shows a strong degree of evidence based on United States v. Ni Fa Yi, European Commission v. RJR Nabisco, Beharry v. Ashcroft, and Center for Reproductive Law v. Bush that the Judge does not engage in transnationalist justice. For a brief explanation of transnational law.

Forbes.com-Richard A. Epstein, professor of law at the University of Chicago and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is concerned that Sotoamyor is extremely weak on property rights based on her ruling in Didden v. Village of Port Chester. Bart Didden, a pharmacist, was opting to build a pharmacy in the redevelopment district in the town Port Chester on land he owned there. Greogry Wasser, to whom the municipality inexplicably delegated its regulatory authority of this particular part of the town, told Didden that if he did not give him $800,000 or controlling interest the land would be condemned by the township. Inevitability, it was. Here is an excerpt from Second Circuit panel's ruling, "We agree with the district court that [Wasser's] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants' demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation." Judge Sotomayor was a member of the panel an was a participant in this ruling.

Bench Memos-Ted Frank, of the American Enterprise Institute, brings up point about Sotomayor being on the wrong side of the law in Ricci v. DeStefano. A case involving fireman, Frank Ricci, suing the city of New Haven, CT. for reverse discrimination. Frank and I also seem to agree on the possibility of Sotomayor hiding her true feelings towards "judicial activism" on the chance it could impede her SCOTUS appointment.

My final conclusion is that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, is not a vapid, vitriolic liberal, bent on jamming activist causes down everyone's throat via the Supreme Court. She, to me, is a moderate liberal in the Souter fashion.

Her credentials, as far as education is concerned, are more than appropriate. Although, there seems to be an ambiguity to her rulings and by compiling all of the evidence together, that being her rulings and opinions which she has given, I am left with doubt that she can be classified as a stalwart and pragmatic defender of the Constitution and what it stands for. This does not fit my own personal expectation of how a Supreme Court Justice should do their job.

Simply put, if I were a Senator I would not vote for Sotomayor as a nominee for the SCOTUS. As previously noted, based upon the evidence I am left with "reasonable doubt" as to whether she would fit within the originalist or consrtuctionalist philosophies and has displayed tendencies towards legal realism.

While I admittedly find it difficult to support Judge Sotomayor as a nominee for the Supreme Court, I do not fear the inevitable fact that she will be appointed either.

Final Note: I would like to give many thanks to Walter Olson of the Manhattan Institute, for providing many of the links to various sites I used, from Point of Law blog. Mr. Olson is also the proprietor of Overlawyered.com, which delves into the abuses and consequences of the American litigation process.

Update: The SCOTUS blog has just released an interesting piece concerning Sotomayor's "racism." Here are two very different opinions from blogging law professors concerning the SCOTUS blog's article, Legal Insurrection and Dissenting Justice.

Enjoy!!

Continue reading ...

North Korea's Nuclear Solutions

Yesterday the regime of North Korea's Kim Jong Il fired off its second nuclear device as well as launching three surface to air missiles as a warning to US spy planes. This recent atomic test leaves the Obama administration with an ever-present conundrum, how to successfully denuclearize the isolated nation and bring relations to a state of normalcy.


Unlike the alleged "fizzle," which took place in 2006, early estimates are indicating a more powerful nuclear test by the North Koreans.

NY Times-The dimensions of the test were not immediately verifiable, but estimates ranged upwards of the one kiloton of the North’s first nuclear test, in 2006. read more...

The blast's tremor, which originated in Kilju, North Korea near the site of the 2006 test, triggered an earthquake which measured between 4.5 and 5.3 in magnitude. Moreover, the tremor strength could be indicative of a blast ranging anywhere between one and twenty kilotons according to South Korean Defense Minister, Lee Sang-Hee.

What does this test mean?

The foreign policy aspect of this situation as well as the long term solutions facing the President Obama are quite complex, as two previous administrations found out. Over the past six years multilateral six party talks have yielded nothing but broken promises and dysfunctionality amongst the allied participants, while North Korea is still pursuing its nuclear ambitions. General consensus among geo-political experts is that North Korea is attempting to use the nuclear card as a way of blackmailing the United States into more concessions or into direct talks with the communist state.

While the six party talks still remain an option, albeit a tainted one. There are other paths the administration could consider.

One is returning North Korea to the terror list, which it was removed from by the Bush administration.

Commentary Magazine-One particular rung in the ladder was the decision by the Bush Administration to remove North Korea from the State Department’s list of terror-sponsoring states. This surely had not a shred of justice in it: there is no evidence that suggests the North Koreans have stopped supporting terror. On the contrary, it was less than a year before that they were caught building Syria a nice fat center-for-the-production-of-weapons-of-mass-destruction. They have also been caught supplying weapons to Palestinian terrorists by sea, and building underground tunnels for Hezbollah. read more...

In addition, there is a debate as to whether or not Kim Jong-Il is actually in charge. There are some thoughts as to whether or not this test represents an internal struggle for power since Jong suffered a stroke last year.

The Guardian-According to a leading expert on North Korea, the British academic Aidan Foster-Carter, a developing fight for supremacy is the most probable explanation for Pyongyang's aggressive behaviour. "North Korea is snarling more. That suggests an internal power struggle," Foster-Carter told a seminar at the Chatham House thinktank in London last week. "The dog barks loudest when it's feeling vulnerable. And maybe it's safer to be a hardliner than a softliner when there's a power struggle going on." read more...

If this is the case then there exists a possible avenue for exploitation of this situation by the United States. Back in 2007, Andrei Lankov, wrote a memorandum for Foreign Policy Magazine to then SoS, Condoleeza Rice, offering possible solutions for toppling Kim Jung Il and his despotic regime.

He pointed out that it was incumbent upon the Bush administration to realize there was a "quiet revolution" happening within North Korea. The government could no longer afford to enforce its draconian rules. Citizens by default were gaining more freedoms than had ever had previously.

The second was using covert sources of information about the goings on in the outside world. North Korea is notoriously noted for being the most closed society on the planet. Any influx of information could be provided by a US run broadcasting station, then picked up by short wave radios which are regularly smuggled into the country by North Koreans.

Thirdly, educating North Korean defectors to the South. Then allowing them to pass on their newly gained knowledge about the rest of the world to family and friends back in the North through smuggled cell phones and networks.

Finally, promote cultural exchanges with the West. Allow North Korean students into America or allow their officials to do study tours in the US. Even something as innocent as inviting North Korean dance troupes to perform internationally could have some long lasting effects.

The key to toppling these tyrants seems to be exposing as many North Korean people to the outside world as possible. As Dr. Lankov points out, one of the main reasons European communism imploded in the 80's was that change was demanded by the people. Although, he neglects to point out that the intense economic pressures the US was enacting on the Soviets greatly contributed to this. A very similar situation like we see in present day North Korea.


Related Articles:

FP Passport-Was North Korea's test really a surprise?

Continue reading ...

President Obama and Notre Dame: Conflict Over Choice or Life.

Well the very controversial Notre Dame/Obama commencement speech is over. Protests took place and the President called for his obligatory ever-growing diversity -- diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief. Then "Poof!" it was over as quick as it began. Nothing accomplished.

More than just being a Catholic, and a pretty pitiful one, I oppose abortion on the grounds that whether there is life at the moment of conception or not, the one thing that is not debatable and that is its potential for sentient life. Therefore just adding to the list of reasons I personally oppose the President and Progressives on their pro-choice stances.

Taking the idea of choice into mind you have two avenues to consider when the idea of aborting an unborn child arises.

The first is the choice you have to practice somewhat safe sex or abstinence. These are your choices, liberals can gnash teeth, raise hell, cry, and whine. However it doesn't change the basic fact that most of the time sex is about free will. Also, science has actually figured out what causes pregnancy and even come up with a few ways to protect yourself against it if you don't feel you are ready for a child. I guess the simple idea of contraception is to difficult to digest so the easier argument about abortion rages on. Can you smell my sarcasm?

The second idea is that of the liberty, free will, and choice of that little piece of tissue which marvelously grows into what we know as a human being. Maybe just maybe, that little germinating hunk of cells would like a chance to live and possibly become prosperous. Or maybe it will become a dreg of society which will drain our resources and hurt others it comes in contact with. Who are we to decide what fate should befall an unborn child because of the background they are born into? I would rather pass judgment on a murdering adult and commit him or her to the gas chamber before I make the call on the future of the unborn.

I know we were told that the election of the President heralded in a shift in the paradigm of thought of the American people to a more progressive and secular frame of mind. Nevermind the latest poll on abortion presented by Gallup recently which shows a vast majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life. Just smoke and mirrors.

The battle will rage and abortions will continue because people no longer have the fortitude to realize as in most things, you aren't fated or predestined, you always have a choice. The only difficulty is whether or not you are pro-choice for the right thing or not.

Continue reading ...

Obama banishes Hunstman to China

In a shrewd political move, Obama has appointed Utah Governor and rising GOP star, Jon Huntsman, to fill the roll as ambassador to China.

From the Politico,

The Politico-Obama’s decision leaves the GOP without an obvious centrist presidential candidate.

President Barack Obama’s decision to appoint Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman as ambassador to China Saturday doesn’t merely remove a likely challenger – it strips the Republican party of one of its few voices urging moderation. read more...

This analysis is a little perplexing. First off, 2012 is a ways off, and it is far to early to say that this removes Huntsman from the field of candidates. If it was 2010 and he received and accepted the appointment I might consider this idea to have a leg to stand on.

In the early 70's then President Gerald Ford appointed George H. W. Bush to be Chief of the US Liaison Office to the People's Republic of China. Bush did not officially hold the position of "ambassador," however he did perform all of the duties required of one. Bush only held the position for 14 months.

Huntsman previously served as a Mormon missionary in Taiwan and is also fluent in Mandarin Chinese. If he is successful there is a chance for Huntsman to use this situation to his advantage. He can easily claim to have a better understanding about the inner workings of one of America's greatest worries and rivals, China. Thereby giving him a leg up on any GOP or Democratic competition in upcoming elections for POTUS.

Although temporarily removed from the equation, it might just to be a little premature to count Huntsman out for a 2012 election run.

Related Articles:

Michelle Malkin-Reports: Utah GOP Gov. Huntsman to resign, become Obama’s China ambassador

WizBang-Republican Utah Governor Jon Huntsman to be Named US Ambassador to China

Jammie Wearing Fool-Huntsman Named Ambassador to China

Continue reading ...

President Obama's plan to tax US companies' foreign profits

In his relentless pursuit to find funding for overtly expansive social programs, the President is now looking towards American businesses once again, "to pay their fair share."

I don't think many people would disagree that most of the American tax code needs to be overhauled. First on everyone's list resoundingly would be the federal income tax, a not so distant second would probably be corporate tax codes. Conversely what the Administration is setting out to accomplish is less about reform and more about revenue generation for government operations.

The President's proposal from the Wall Street Journal.

WSJ-The White House plan has three main elements affecting businesses. It would curb corporations' ability to park their overseas business earnings indefinitely outside the U.S. and avoid U.S. taxes, a practice known as deferral. The plan would change the legal treatment of many international subsidiaries that companies have used to shift earnings into low-tax offshore havens. And it would put new limits on corporations' ability to use offshore subsidiaries to generate unjustified foreign-tax credits.

However, according to some criticisms from the usual suspects, and one you may not expect, there are some problems with the President's proposal.

From The Tax Foundation,

"The Obama Administration is proposing to raise more than $100 billion from American multinational corporations by limiting in some way the ability of U.S. companies to defer tax on profits earned abroad. The premise behind the proposal is that by raising the taxes paid on the foreign profits of U.S. companies earned abroad, the companies will somehow have more incentive to locate their operations here in the United States.

"The proposal, however, is flawed and fails to recognize that in the increasingly global economy where capital flows freely across borders, the United States can no longer expect other countries to follow its policies. The proposal will penalize the foreign operations of U.S. companies operating abroad and make it more difficult for them to compete with foreign companies.

"The manufacturing of tractors or generating facilities in places like China and India will be less likely to be done by U.S. companies. Rather, these business opportunities will more likely be won by the foreign competitors of U.S. companies with the economic rewards—jobs and profits—going abroad rather than U.S. companies.

Surprisingly, Clinton's former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, agrees to a point.

Robert Reich's Blog-The White House says that some jobs go abroad because American companies are lured there by tax loopholes which, if closed, would bring the jobs home. True. But a crackdown on tax havens might also cost American jobs if companies decided that a higher tax burden here required them to cut payrolls in order to stay competitive or to simply leave the United States altogether.

Reich later draws some interesting conclusions as to why the Administration is attempting to go down this road. The first is for a bargaining chip to gain support for Universal Health Care from private businesses. A plausible analysis, however, I am not thoroughly convinced.

Obama knows he is entering waters in which his proposed social planning is going to eventually need funding from every working American in the form of tax payrolls. Regardless of what economic quintile they fall into. With the bill potentially coming due and congressional elections right around the corner some quick cash from a corporate shakedown might just be the answer. This scenario makes Reich's second reason a little more sound.

The second reason has to do with revenues. Originally the White House had planned to pay for universal health insurance by limiting tax deductions for wealthier Americans. But the Democratic leadership nixed that source. The rich Americans who take the deductions, and the groups benefiting from the wealthy's tax-deductible expenditures on them, had enough political leverage to make it a non-starter. That means the White House has to find other sources of money.

President Obama's constant theme of punishment as motivation might work well with liberal and progressive cronies, but this is the real world. Big business will find a way to get around this. Then there is the idea of foreign competition offering tax shelters and havens for US based companies to move operations solely to their regions. Leaving absolutely nothing for the American people, Obama, or his agendas.

Instead of using a punishment attitude it might behoove the President to try a new approach, like positive reinforcement by lowering the corporate tax rate by half or more. Providing a climate that is conducive and not hostile to business might just motivate them to return. It's called an incentive, the thing businesses thrive on. Unfortunately this not likely since Obama's mind set is more about big government than the free market.

Continue reading ...

The Fourth American Republic

As pointed out on the Riehl World View the idea of the Fourth Republic of America is generating much interest these days. Especially with the election of the hyper-partisan bunch we have in control of the Hill.

Riehl makes an excellent observation about the growth of governance and movements, there is always the intellectual and the organic.

This brings me to an article in the American Magazine which I read, coincidentally, earlier this week, The Coming of the Fourth American Republic.

James DeLong, the author, makes an compelling case that the "special interest state," which we have lived in the the throes of for 70+ years, is living on borrowed time. Due to a some interruptions by historical intervention it was pulled out of the morgue before the burial could begin.

If it is in a state of demise, the questions still remains, "What will replace it?"

Like most developments in history there are a few forces which enact their influence over situations. People, attitudes, awareness, day-to-day events, reason, and courses of action. All of these have their roots in either the intellectual, organic, or both. Nevertheless, our own influence or sphere of control is directly proportionate to our understanding of history and how we reason these past events. This, whether you want to believe it or not, is the basis of purist conservatism.

Take for instance the Great Depression and what eventually corrected this horrific economic downturn. The New Deal did nothing more than stabilize, to a small degree, that rapid decline. In fact, in 1938 we faced another recession within a depression because of the failed policies of the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations.

When the intellect failed, society provided an organic answer to the problem, World War II. Rather than massive government spending on social programs it was the commitment by the government to the war effort and manufacturing that actually corrected the economy, GNP estimates were as high a 40% at the time. All to often when life has to make the correction for you it is usually costly and painful. Subsequently, we have chosen to gloss over these facts and are traveling down an almost identical path. Mark Twain once said, "History doesn't repeat itself-at best it sometimes rhymes."

After the organic there is the intellectual. How you interpret the events of the past and their application to the future is the job of reasoned thought. Looking at recent political events offers a prism into our current situation. Much of the country was swept up by the media's Bush Bashing. Some rightfully earned but most nothing more than propaganda. This opened up the door for societies' realization that something in American government had to change. Barack Obama and his cohorts sought to seize upon that realization and market their campaign to fit, they came charging in promising to herald in a new era of governance and leadership. Unfortunately, all we have received is a lawyer in charge, once again.

Over fifty million of my fellow Americans chose not to fully use their cognitive resources and recognize this was coming. While they understood the need for change from Washington's status quo, they failed to further investigate into the messenger of that change. However, most of their intentions were noble and I do not fault them for that.

Finally, this brings me to my next point concerning political orators and philosophers which have made cameo appearances on this site. Gentlemen such as Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, Du Tocqueville, Cicero, St. Thomas Aquinas, Locke, etc. All of these men were concerned with the organic development of society and culture and realized that the lessons of the past could guide us, not dictate us, to our futures. They used these lessons, combined with reason, to chart a course for future generations to follow to success. It's a shame we aren't listening.

While I cannot predict the path this country will take with any certainty I do know its future rests solely in our own hands. Even though these decisions can be frightening it is also very exciting.

There is no greater reward than to watch history unfold right in front of your eyes and becoming part of it. Thereupon, the path we choose should be taken on with the same zeal as those who forged our Republic. If we do it right we could be on the brink of true hope and change, not the kind one lawyer with a Messianic complex has offered up.

Continue reading ...

Obama to loan $100 billion of your money to IMF.

In one day, Obama proposes $100 million is spending cuts while promising to fulfill his commitment to loan the International Monetary Fund $100 billion.

His campaign motto for 2012 should be altered to, "Hope you have some change in your pocket."

From Reuters. (H/T to Don Surber)

Reuters-President Barack Obama on Monday proposed a $100 billion U.S. loan to the International Monetary Fund to boost the IMF's resources and urged a bigger stake in the IMF for emerging powers.

In a letter to U.S. congressional leaders, Obama said the U.S. funding "does not represent a budgetary expenditure or any increase in the deficit since it effectively represents an exchange of assets."

The $100 billion is part of commitments made by Group of 20 countries at a London summit on April 2, which agreed to triple IMF resources to a total of $750 billion to help the IMF respond to crises in emerging market economies as a result of the global financial crisis and economic downturn. read more...

Well, there goes all of that "massive" $100 million in fiscal sanity that was being proposed.

Continue reading ...

$100 million budget cuts in a $3.5 trillion world of spending.

After a couple of days of well deserved rest, I figured jumping back into the blogging fray with a shot of ridicule across the Obama administration's bow on their budget cuts would be appropriate.

This ridiculous attempt at "fiscal responsibility" is far more insulting to a person's intelligence than any GOP budget proposal could ever hope to be. Here are some very keen observations on what cutting $100 million from government waste is equivalent to.

From Greg Mankiw's Blog,

Just to be clear: $100 million represents .003 percent of $3.5 trillion.

To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had be cut? By $3 over the course of the year--approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year.

From CQ Politics,

And it’s only a downpayment: In his weekly address this weekend, Obama said the next step will be to announce “the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective.”

So $100 million is a pretty big chunk of federal spending that would be reined in, right? Actually, no. Not compared to the $3.7 trillion Obama proposed spending in the fiscal 2010 budget. If you want to put it in perspective, Obama asked the department and agency heads to cut the equivalent of about 1/37,000th of his budget plans.

Or, if you want to use the Senate and House budget resolutions instead — which trimmed Obama’s spending plans back to about $3.5 trillion — you could say that he’s trying to cut about 1/35,000th of the budget.

But it might be more fair to compare the spending cuts to the size of the annual deficits, since that’s what Obama is trying to get under control. In fiscal 2010, the deficit would be about $1.4 trillion under Obama’s policies, according to the Congressional Budget Office (the deficits would gradually get smaller in later years). So in that sense, the Obama administration would be cutting about 1/14,000th of the deficit for next year.

It seems fairly apparent that the administration is tired of hiding their disdain for the intelligence of the people of this country. At least with this they are finally being honest that they think we are stupid.

(H/T to memeorandum)


Related Articles: For a really comical take on the current state of affairs within our country and some truthfully zany solutions please read comedian, Robert Reich's article in TPM. Be careful not to bust a gut laughing.


Where Government Spending Should be Trimmed -- And Why It's Necessary to Fast-Track Universal Health Care

Continue reading ...

Obama Bowed, Bush Danced.

There has been a lot of ranting on the right side of the fence about Obama's deep bow to the Saudi king, Abdullah. As rightfully pointed out by Little Green Footballs where was the griping and hand wringing when Bush did it?

I have no love for either Obama or LGF, but right is right and their point is well taken. For the record, and those with long term memory problems, President Bush went much further than just a bow.



If the Right is ever going to engage the Leftists and be victorious, they must not engage in hypocrisy. It's far better to be wrong than a hypocrite.

Continue reading ...

Obama's "Mea Culpa" to Europe

Obama's canard of "American mea culpa" to the Europeans, while being offered up to gain political leverage, is trendy, yet painfully oblivious to history.

In his speech in Strasbourg, Obama criticized his country further than any standing US President in history. The British perspective and highlights.

“Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

On this side of the pond what was noted was the Obama lambasting of the Euros and their insidious anti-Americanism. The American perspective and highlights.

He decried “an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious.” And he suggested that America had done its part to break with the past — not least of all by electing him — and now it was time for Europe to do the same.

“America is changing but it cannot be America alone that changes,” he said.

Both the British newspaper, The Telegraph, and the American Politico obviously grasped the broader context of Obama's harsh criticisms of both America and Europe. Simply to build a partnership, between the US and Europe, for fighting Al-Qaeda. A partnership which is dependent on Obama's personal popularity and how much smugness and guilt he can instigate among the Euorpeans.

In contrast to reality, Obama has overlooked a few important facts about the Europeans and AQ.

The Europeans:

Stephen Sestanovich, of Foreign Policy Magazine, has some interesting observations on the political dealings of past US Presidents and European leaders.

For half a century and more, in good times and bad, European leaders have advised new American presidents not to bother them with big, risky, expensive Washington ideas. They almost always prefer the status quo -- or, at most, very incremental change. But, having said their piece, they then usually come around. (Sometimes -- very rarely, it has to be said -- they're right to begin with.)

History only proves this observation to be correct.

As Mr. Sestanovich points out the four President's preceding Obama all dealt with European obtuseness and bullheaded complacency. George W. Bush's adversarial relationship with Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac over Iraq and Bill Clinton, again with Chirac, over intervention in the Balkans. George H.W. Bush and his challenge to NATO to offer up a more aggressive peace plan to over match Gorbachev's "peace-offensive," Which was met by the European response of being to bellicose. The very same response they offered to Reagan on his suggestion of "scrapping" the failed 70's policy of detente with the Soviets.

Not much has changed in way of the European attitude and expectations of the United States. From StratFor, Global Intelligence.

There is no question that Obama and the major European powers want to have a closer relationship. But there is a serious question about expectations. From the European point of view, the problem with Bush was that he did not consult them enough and demanded too much from them. They are looking forward to a relationship with Obama that contains more consultation and fewer demands. But while Obama wants more consultation with the Europeans, this does not mean he will demand less. In fact, one of his campaign themes was that with greater consultation with Europe, the Europeans would be prepared to provide more assistance to the United States. Europe and Obama loved each other, but for very different reasons. The Europeans thought that the United States under Obama would ask less, while Obama thought the Europeans would give more.

While Obama is is perpetual campaign mode and relying solely on his popularity with the Europeans to get his agenda pushed through, the rigidity that he faces is almost hereditary within their society. The Europeans seemingly view themselves as dispensers of sage advice and wisdom to the younger America, not really wanting to get "involved." They are merely content with letting America do the dirty work while they reap all the rewards. Waking up to this reality about the European mindset would greatly assist the administration to create a foreign policy doctirne that is above all, realistic.

Al-Qaeda:

After having been soundly defeated in Al-Anbar province in Iraq and losing immense popularity among Arabs because of their violent tactics employed against civilians. AQ is no longer the big picture threat that the US faces in the Middle East. The Taliban may have taken on the role of public enemy number one.

As noted by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) while the Taliban may have a difficult time maintaining ground in Afghanistan, they are gaining new territory in Pakistan.

The Taliban's enforcement of the Shari'a law in the Swat Valley district did not begin with the signing of the Shari'a for Peace agreements. As a matter of fact, the Taliban in the district, under the command of Maulana Fazlullah, has been consolidating its control and authority over the region for several years and gradually enforcing the Islamic law there.

There is a more disturbing trend developing being revisited. The Pakistani military and Taliban forces have re-entered into an old alliance which aims to degrade and defeat the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

The apparent capitulation of the Pakistani authorities to the Taliban demands is due - at least partially - to a long-standing strategic alliance between the Taliban and the Pakistani military. This alliance benefits the Taliban by allowing it to gradually realize its goal of asserting its control and imposing the Shari'a law in expanding areas of Pakistan.

The benefits for Al-Qaeda in all of this is an expansion of territory to operate from, new recruits, and possible support from the Pakistani military and intelligences services. For now, any success AQ might muster is solely dependent on the Taliban gains within Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Europeans need to be shook out their malaise and made aware that only concentrating on AQ is fighting a symptom, not the sickness. By defeating the Taliban this would leave little room for AQ to hide and forces them into more of a rear guard movement, if not rendering them to complete ineffectiveness.

To his credit though, Obama, has promised to revitalize military action in Afghanistan, with the assistance of NATO. Nevertheless, one of his greatest foreign policy errors might not be Afghanistan itself, but depending on vigorous assistance from the Europeans. The same people who have proven in the past the be more of a political hindrance than a helping hand.

Update: And so it begins. From Yahoo News.

STRASBOURG, France – France and Germany fully endorsed President Barack Obama's new Afghan war strategy on Saturday but firmly resisted sending more combat troops in a rift that overshadowed symbols of unity at NATO 60th-anniversary summit.

Continue reading ...

Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican Alternative Budget Proposal, and their half-hearted attempt

While the Republican budget proposal is more attractive than Obama proposition , the GOP attempt is half-hearted at best. It doesn't even come close to addressing the drastic need of fiscal responsibility in Washington DC.

This is a quick comparison of the CBO estimates of the two budget proposals. First the Obama budget proposal with CBO estimates.

PCT-Obama's original estimate had the deficit growing to $6.96 trillion from 2010-2019, a GDP of $22.86 trillion in 2019, and publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP of 67.2%, According to the Budgetary Office the deficit created by the President's budget will exceed the original estimate of $6.96 trillion by $2.3 trillion, rising to a total of $9.27 trillion in 2019, a GDP of $20.97 trillion, and publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP of 82.4%.

Republican proposal.



Click on image to enlarge.

The Republican alternative budget creates $ 36.91 trillion in spending from 2010-19, while creating $30.93 in revenue. Giving you a deficit total of $5.98 trillion over ten years. Compared to the Obama budget proposal which creates a deficit of $9.3 trillion from 2010-19. Giving you a 3.6 trillion dollar difference. Average yearly deficit spending for the Republican budget is a little over $500 billion. Returning to Bush levels of spending after 2012. (Yeah, that's really forward thinking.)

The amount of publicly held debt under the GOP budget rises to 65.1% of GDP versus the 82.4% under Obama.

While substantially cheaper the GOP, as of yet, has not addressed the catastrophic mandatory spending problem. Their proposals for reform are somewhat ambiguous and can be found on pages 23, 24, and 25 of the budget PDF. Here are their total numbers on spending for mandatory programs as well as a comparison to the Obama estimates.

Republican estimate from CBO data,



Click on image to enlarge.

Obama estimate from CBO data.



Click on image to enlarge.

Republican plan, total mandatory spending from 2010-19 totaling $20.65 trillion (Interest not included). Obama plan, total mandatory spending for the same time period, $23.74 trillion (Interest not included). A little over $3 trillion in savings within a ten year margin. The outlays for mandatory spending still grows at a very rapid rate even under the GOP plan. While the Republican idea is far better, it is painfully clear that this is a band aid fix and more can be achieved.

Now here is the proposal I really find intriguing, which is some badly needed reform to the tax system.



Click on image to enlarge.

On overall taxes, the GOP plan will create a total of $30.93 trillion in receipts that will be garnered from tax payrolls. Whereas the Obama plan will generate $34.21 trillion from tax payrolls circa 2010-19. Approximate difference between the two is a savings from tax cuts and reform of $3.28 trillion to the American people over a ten year period.

For the most part the GOP is asking Americans to accept the Bush spending parameters as the new way to operate government. Their new billion is half a trillion and that is unacceptable. This phase planning should be far more aggressive, especially with the time frame we are looking at. While still better than the Progressives "budget," the GOP is once again making us choose them as the lesser of two evils. A choice I am tired of having to make.

Please note: For a good take on the Far-Left's criticism of the GOP budget plan, please visit the Progressive blogs, The Political Animal and Crooks and Liars. You will see the wearisome memes of "Tax cuts for the rich," whereas nary a mention of the absurd and obscene the spending in the Obama budget or the money the average American will be saving under the GOP plan.

While they are hardly even worthy of being called credible critiques, I was still hoping they could at least give me a half-assed attempt at some intellectual honesty. Unfortunately, all you get is an eye opening look at how much of a bubble these infant minded buffoons live in.

Continue reading ...