The Reality Check

The GOP Wants To Lose in 2012

2012-01-18T22:27:00.001-08:00

Obama is hard not to like as an American centrist. He prefers not to rock the boat with Congress. He's backed off his pledge to stop harassing state sanctioned marijuana, quietly of course. He has continued the Bush era wars, and expanded drone attacks in Pakistan and elsewhere. He has even continued the Bush era tax cuts for the rich.

And who are the Republicans most like to put up against him? Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney - of RomneyCare, Taxachussetts, and Latter-day Saints fame - is the All-Star in the lead for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination. At least John McCain could claim to be a war hero.

Right now only 35.4% of Americans claim to be Republicans: folks who can be expected to vote straight ticket for the GOP - if they turn out to the polls. Democrats only claim 32.7% possible straight ticket voters - but the real prize is 32% of American voters who are unaffiliated.

How is Romney going to capture those unaffiliated voters if his platform is much the same as Obama's? (FYI, the Boston Herald claims they are both against gay marriage... who knew?)

The incumbent is going to always be in trouble in a rough economy - but Mitt Romney isn't speaking the language of the middle class in that unaffiliated group. His tax policy is interesting reading, until you realize that he is all for cutting taxes on capital gains and dividend income - not salary and wages. Plus, no one gives a damn about simplifying the tax code, especially since 2/3rd of Americans take the standard deduction every year and 40% file the 1040 EZ income tax return. (Never mind that TurboTax and the like make difficult tax filings easy.) While his energy jobs policy is superior to Obama's - all those great ideas like mining shale for energy depend on a high oil price, one that will hurt more people before it helps a few. Unless the economy turns into a "through the bums out" scenario, I don't think Romney can beat Obama.

If not Romney, there is Gingrich - who brags about balancing the budget but not raising taxes to do it, Rick Santorum - who doesn't even have the organization to get signatures in Virginia, and of course Ron Paul - who is surging with great ideas but is managing to unite the entire GOP establishment against him.

There is no Jeb Bush in this discussion, no Robert Gates, no Colin Powell, no Republicans or conservatives with the base uniting platform and star power to take on President Barack Obama. If there is any kind of upswing in the economy this fall, Obama's victory is assured.

Given Obama's policies and how they match up with mainstream Republicans, I think they are ok with that.

Reality Check: TSA

2010-11-26T01:15:00.000-08:00

I don't like terrorists. They tried to kill my friends. They should be stopped, but not at all costs.

Why? Terrorism, while visually terrifying, doesn't have a real disproportionate effect on the larger private sector. Regular old non sexy violent crime, disease, and even driving a car can claim more deaths than terrorism. Let's talk about that traffic problem.

Thousands of Americans are killed on American roads each year. Accidents, construction, abuse of police power, and bad driving are responsible for perhaps millions of driving delays each year that effects the flow of American business. Some of the issues with traffic are fixable, like bad driving; while others, like government annual budgeting practices causing lots of road construction at the end of the fiscal year, are systemic. Each one of us can probably name a friend, colleague, or relative who has been killed on the road. It is truly a problem that affects us all.

However, if real effort is used to track down the sources and solutions to these traffic issues you will see real benefit to the American citizenry. Fewer deaths, more on time arrivals, lower insurance premiums, and a better quality of life are the rewards. People might even be happier when they arrive at work!

Terrorism doesn't nearly have the scope that road issues do. Preventing terrorism in America, using current methods, is neither effective, nor apt to bring citizens the piece of mind we would expect with all the money and effort being spent. Grabbing an old man's balls or feeling a busty woman's décolletage accomplishes nothing good. Taking nude pictures of businessmen with X-rays, the same radiation hospital personnel use lead shielding to avoid is both unnecessary and evil. And the fact that TSA spokesmen, media people, and President Obama defend such practices is absolutely perverse. If the solution is more life changing than the problem, what's the point?

The problem is that the government and airlines have already protected airplanes from terrorism. They did this by putting a solid lock on the cockpit door, a gun inside, and thorough background checks to make sure the pilot isn't a nut. Done, over. Cured like polio.

The crap the TSA is pulling all over the country now is at best a farce and at worst unadulterated oppression. I thought a black man would know better than to support this.

Another GOP Traitor

2008-10-27T10:09:00.000-07:00

This blog was started in frustration from watching the talking heads and politicians lie and misstate the facts for whatever advantage they seemed to crave at the time, no matter how counterproductive a stand might be for the country or even themselves.

As we wind down to Election Day, such backbending has come to a head - but also will hopefully soon subside, at least for a while.

In honor of the upcoming respite from 24/7 political bullshit flying in my face, I have decided to come out of the voting closet and declare my intentions to vote for ABM - Anybody But McCain.

While I do, with reservation, endorse Sen. Barack Obama - it is only because the alternatives (from any party) are completely unpalatable.

Sen. John McCain built his reputation as a war hero and political maverick. He braved imprisonment and torture in Viet Nam, and earned the well exercised right to refer to VC's as "gooks" up through 2004. He sided, rightly, against President Reagan when he deployed US Marines to Lebanon, and celebrated their return after their barracks were destroyed in Beirut. He crossed the Senate aisle time and time again for efforts he championed, including the infamous McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. And most recently, he supported President Bush and his horrible misadventure in Iraq when no one else would; notable especially given that antiwar sentiment made Rep. Ron Paul a serious GOP Primary rival and propelled Sen. Obama to his party's nomination.

However, the maverick has long since disappeared into the sunset. In his place is a man who fights for power and an ability to make war with anyone, anywhere. He supported the bailout when constituents across the country filled Congress' email boxes with opposition - even when he could have pointed to a record of supporting fiscal reform. He, along with much of the West, was on the wrong side of the short lived war in Georgia - waged by a man who dared to preemptively bomb his own citizens during the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games. And in a classic Faustian/Tolkienic exchange for power, with the GOP nomination he accepted all that was bad about the right wing of the Republicans (xenophobia, exceptionalism, stratospheric naivete, batshit craziness) and none of the good (humility, morals, frugality).

While McCain may be a great candidate for the US Senate - as someone with enough ego and enough political capital to stop too much insanity from becoming law - he is obviously not a strong enough personality to bring the maverick to the White House. And unlike President Clinton, he has no GOP version of a Democratic Leadership Council to back him up. A moderate politician without a moderate base of support is simply an extremist who won't get much sleep.

As for third parties - this cycle they are a joke. Rep. Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party has gone the way of Ambassador Alan Keyes - he likes "being" a Presidential candidate, he just doesn't seem to like the idea of trying to actually win. Ralph Nader has some interesting things to say, but one wonders if he simply squanders funds with his quadrennial run for the White House. Personally, I have always felt that third parties belong in the grassroots... it's much cheaper to run for small city councils and county commissions than for the top jobs - and such positions have a lot more day to day influence.

Which leaves us with Sen. Obama. Had he been up to it, Republican and former coach Mike Ditka could have stopped Obama's candidacy back in Illinois during his first (and only) US Senate race. Obama's political fortunes have seemed destined to be carried on the back of GOP disfunction. While Obama has a definite lack of experience and not much legislation to his name (not necessarily a bad thing), his sense of timing is impeccable. And as celebrities go (Obama was the basis for Blair Underwood's character on L.A. Law) America has been lucky so far. Sen. Fred Thompson, Pres. Reagan, Gov. Ventura, and Gov. Schwartzenegger are all passable politicians who were elected more for who or what they were than for completing an American cursus honorum.

Thankfully, Sen. Obama is more than an articulate black man in a "throw the bums out" suit. While his ideas on the economy and capitalism in general are suspect, his ability to think through ideas and develop policy are not. When the Democrats took back the US Senate, Sen. Hillary Clinton declared that her failed and ridiculed 1990s plan for Universal Healthcare was back as well. Thanks to his butchering of a classic Beach Boys song, in a McCain administration Tehran is doomed - and to hell with the consequences. Everything available from Obama's background (unfortunately that includes his law review days) seems to indicate that he would facilitate decent policy, and not dictate bad policy. And in this cycle that's the best we've got.

The best advice I have received concerning choosing a candidate or a party was from a good friend and colleague of mine. He once said that he couldn't see himself voting for someone if he couldn't see himself associating with his supporters. For me, I couldn't see myself hanging out with the zealous halfwits that supported Vice President Al Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004. Now, thanks to the xenophobic frenzy that the McCain-Palin campaign has stirred up - I wouldn't be caught dead in a GOP rally.

Nothing is certain in politics, and the best know how to campaign one way and govern another. It's my opinion that Sen. Obama hasn't yet mastered those tricks, and he would generally willing to look beyond his leftist leanings and at least make an effort to govern in a way that reflects the facts and is best for the country. If that isn't audacious hope, I don't know what is.

Russia Holds All The Cards...

2008-08-18T20:44:00.002-07:00

Reading the bloviations from Secretary Rice and the White House concerning Iraq is physically painful. The utter shameless and hypocrisy crystallized into tangible form with UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad's statement that the days of violence to settle political disputes are over... "in Europe." John McCain's unwavering support of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili is baffling, until one learns of his campain manager's connections to the current Georgian regime, McCain's virulent Russophobia, and his megalomaniacal thirst for war.

The unfortunate truth now is that thanks to seven years of a schizophrenic and masochistic American foreign policy, John McCain and famed Gen. George S. Patton might agree on something - war might be the only thing the Russians will understand.

What other option does NATO have if it wishes to "punish" Russia, like an errant child? Russia is marginalized in G-8 talks discussing currency priorities. There is little hope for Russia to join the World Trade Organization as long as Ukraine and Georgia raise objections. The NATO-Russia council has failed answer key Russian policy objectives like averting the bombing of Russia's ally Serbia; the invasion of Iraq; European deployment of missile defense systems; or offers of NATO membership to the former Warsaw Pact nations of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland. Trade embargos with Russia would be suicide given their major exports are oil, natural gas, and metals - all vital commodities keeping the European economic engine humming. If the three major tools of persuasion for countries are diplomacy, economics, and the military - well, only one is left, and no sane politician wants to go there. Georgia, for all of Saakashvili's charm and bravado, simply isn't worth it.

Frankly, the Bush Administration is handling this situation all wrong. As soon as Russia made it clear that she was serious about taking the Georgians to task - we should have cut bait and given Russia our support. Georgia didn't stand a chance against the battle hardened Russian army, and even if the US wanted to help Georgia militarily - there just wasn't enough time to make it happen. With the Black Sea too shallow to hold our aircraft carriers, not to mention having to get the Turks' permission to get access to those waters, and our military spread thin like butter in Iraq and Afghanistan we had no ready forces to make an immediate impact. The only thing that could have been salvaged was American soft power and the moral high road.

Rather than back Georgia unilaterally, Bush should have scolded Saakashvili for bombing his own people, praised Putin's heroism towards the Ossetians, and pushed for UN peacekeepers to be sent in on Friday afternoon before the Russians had a chance to overrun Georgia proper. This realpolitik response would have taken best advantage of the impossible situation on the ground. Right now Russia holds all the cards... Their experience with Chechnya proves they are willing to stick it out and fight if they need too, and NATO isn't in a position to stop them without going all out. The best thing is to side with the winner, and make Putin a part of the solution, instead of a part of the problem.

The best part about that strategy is that it is what he wanted all along.

Iceland Might Be Upset with McCain Today

2008-05-27T09:23:00.000-07:00

Matt Drudge reports that John McCain will make a speech discussing the "youth" of the United States. Here is his excerpt...

MCCAIN 'YOUTH' SPEECH PLANNED FOR TUESDAY: 'For much of our history, the world considered the United States a young country. Today, we are the world's oldest constitutional democracy, yet we remain a young nation. We still possess the attributes of youth -- spirit, energy, vitality, and creativity. America will always be young as long as we are looking forward, and leading, to a better world'...

There are a lot of things to be critical about in this statement, but lets start with the easy one. As far as I know, the Republic of Iceland is the oldest continuous constititutional democracy in the world, having formed a democratically elected legislature and judiciary back in 930. It was called the Althing, and has been in existence for most of the 1000+ years since its inception. In fact, the original meeting place, Thingvellir ("parliament fields") is now a national park. How do I know this? I've been there.

I take my world constitutional democractic history seriously.

So, there's that. Also, I don't even think the US is a close second. After all, our founders modeled the US Constitution on the one that governed the Swiss, the Bundesbrief (circa 1291).

While I am being nit-picky, the reality of the matter is that in the next presidential term less emphasis should be placed on world leadership and national greatness, and more should be focused on solving problems here at home. A falling dollar, rising commodity prices, crowded prisons, and a increasingly forboding surveillence regime are issues that need our attention right now. As of today, America is not in a position to lead - nor should it, until we can solve these very very pressing problems at home.

If America is still young, than we would be best be described as sophomores - also known as "wise fools."

The Whites vs. The Wrights

2008-04-30T12:05:00.000-07:00

Scott McConnell over at @TAC (The American Conservative Blog) commented today on Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments on race and its relevence in cultural discourse. McConnell makes the case that we, or at least white people anyway, have reached the post-racial reality that so many Obamaniacs have hoped he would bring. Citing the lack of riots since the 1990s, and the fact that immigration has made the racial issue much less bipolar in this country.

For white people, race may be a dead issue. Whites in general no longer disgrace themselves by tolerating such evilness as the Klan or violent white supremicism. In many American cities, interracial marriage is tolerated, if not accepted entirely. Affirmative action led to some egregious instances of "reverse discrimination;" but unlikely heros like Ward Connerly and the Federal courts have rolled back the worst of the excesses - leaving a feel good level playing field behind. And these days, the growth of the urban black middle class makes it easy to find at least one black friend in which a white person would share some common ground.

Add to that the reduction in crime in major cities like New York and Chicago, and New Urbanism developments in other cities like Atlanta and St. Louis, it is possible for whites to live in a cosmopolitan environment where racialism is a thing of the past.

What Scott McConnell fails, or does not care to realize is that race still matters to those who aren't urbanized whites. Blacks in particular are affected by the wealth gap rather than the income gap (which for many communities is largely closed), and being caught in a vicious tyranny of low expectations - both part of a legacy of race discrimination and lack of direction. The fact that a disproportionately high number of black men are in prison and/or poverty is a derivative problem from the ones mentioned above.

As an institution that predates McConnell's post-racial reality, the black church was one of the few institutions interested in solving those two major concerns. And given that we as a society are only two generations removed from widespread discrimination, it seems funny to expect leaders who remembered those days to assume all is well with the world.

Food Rationing In America

2008-04-21T08:25:00.000-07:00

It's true. Right now its imported rice in California, and flour in New England. If we don't let the ethanol boondoggle go, wheat and bread will be next.

British Ministry of Defense Feels A Draft

2008-04-17T08:40:00.000-07:00

After being caught with their pants down. Hopefully you remember the incident in the Persian Gulf where 14 British sailors were arrested by the Iranians for violating their territorial waters. Publicly the British cried foul, but the heroic Times of London proved that the Brits knew they screwed up all along. Here is what really happened.

Newly released Ministry of Defence documents state that:

— The arrests took place in waters that are not internationally agreed as Iraqi;

— The coalition unilaterally designated a dividing line between Iraqi and Iranian waters in the Gulf without telling Iran where it was;

— The Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ coastal protection vessels were crossing this invisible line at a rate of three times a week; It was the British who apparently raised their weapons first before the Iranian gunboats came alongside;

— The cornered British, surrounded by heavily armed Iranians, made a hopeless last-minute radio plea for a helicopter to come back and provide air cover.

Wow. I hope someone is fired over this. Ahmadinejad has his issues, but he was smart enough to treat the captured sailors well once he realized that he was going to be on the winning side of the dispute. I don't think Bush and his ilk are nearly that clever.

Iraq War Self Funded? Iraq Won't Even Put Something On It...

2008-04-09T08:58:00.001-07:00

But Iraq has money, a nice oil surplus in spite of the fact that current oil exports haven't reached Saddam era levels. This is appalling.

Iraq is looking at a potential boon in oil revenue this year, possibly as much as $100 billion in 2007 and 2008. Meanwhile, the U.S. military is having to buy its fuel on the open market, paying on average $3.23 a gallon and spending some $153 million a month in Iraq on fuel alone.

A back of the napkin analysis shows a $9.1 billion fuel bill for the whole time we were over there. To add fuel to the fire, Robert Bryce at The American Conservative points out that the $3.23/gallon number doesn't even include logistics costs. Those costs send estimates through the stratosphere since all that fuel for the US Military isn't even coming from Iraq. Bryce estimates the total fuel cost to be nearly a billion a week! The back of the napkin tells us that is nearly $240 billion just to keep our vehicles on the move since 2003.

The reality is that when it comes to occupation policy, the Bush administration doesn't even know what it is doing. We compare ourselves to the Romans or the British, but at least they had the good sense to pillage an area they spend so much blood and treasure to conquer. Exporting democracy to the world sounds well and good to most (unread) people - but the neocons never said we would do it for free.

Irony Is Lost On This Guy

2008-01-14T05:37:00.000-08:00

Check out this article from the Associated Press. Here are the key quotes from his trip to the UAE.

Dubai has a powerful Iranian business community, and the West, led by the United States, is cracking down on business in and out of Iran to protest against its nuclear ambitions. Dubai is caught in the middle — eager to maintain its lucrative business with Iran, but wary of angering the United States and the United Nations.

So Bush is putting pressure on Dubai to stop allowing Iranians to use the city-state to make an end run around sanctions effecting business. All because the Iranians want nuclear power - the US doesn't want Iran to have nuclear anything.

Later in the article comes this gem.

At an exhibit on energy economy in the Gulf, Bush praised the United Arab Emirates federation for examining how to move beyond a reliance on oil.

"It's amazing, isn't it?" Bush said. "This country has gotten its wealth from the ground and is now reinvesting in alternative forms of energy."

So Bush says Iran must run everything on oil, that all scientists admit won't last forever, while the UAE is praised for avoiding that fate?

If Bush could actually recognize irony - I honestly think foreign policy wouldn't be such a mess. I guess irony was only discussed in Honors English at Yale.

Ethanol Fuel is a Boondoggle

2007-12-06T10:29:00.000-08:00

The New York Times published an article discussing ethanol lobbyists efforts to convince the government to force ethanol-gasoline blends from 10% to 20% or even 30%. The lobbyists say there is a sweet spot where a 30% fuel blend can get more mileage than pure gasoline. The reality is that too many corn farmers took government subidies to grow corn for ethanol production - and now there is a glut. Rather than get rid of the subsidies, which would bring prices down throughout the food supply chain, they want to force the extra ethanol into existing cars.

This wouldn't be so bad if we all drove E85 cars like Sen. Obama, but most Americans drive vehicles that run best (and CLEANEST) on pure gasoline. Adding more ethanol would put more wear and tear on the engines, and according to an Austrailian study it would increase emissions. Not to mention the loss in mileage, requiring consumers to buy more fuel to go the same distances, raising the price of gas AGAIN.

I don't know who is worse - the corn/ethanol lobbyists or the oil sheikhs!

For Heaven's Sake Gentlemen, Hitler is Dead!

2007-11-29T11:40:00.000-08:00

Why must we continue to look for monsters to slay? There is only one country in the world right now with the industrial might of 1930s Germany and anything close to the iron will to conquer the world, and Hitler ain't here.

While the evil Versailles treaty after WWI created Hitler, there was little Europe could do to stop him. In the end it took what was left of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and a fully committed United States to bring him down. Nothing less.

Iran can't stop the incursions by our Special Forces. Neither could Iraq. Venezuela is a slave to the high oil price. North Korea can't keep the lights on. The reality is that there is no new Hitler, and to dream him up is only invective.

Global War on Terror = PIRATES!!!

2007-10-30T13:22:00.001-07:00

Friggin Pirates! What is this, the 17th century?

When will the United States government understand that Islamic rule doesn't equal Al Qaida and 9/11? The reality is that Ethopia doesn't give a damn about what bad happens to Somalia, so they aren't the go-to people to try to work with the new Somali government. Nevermind the guys behind the new Somali regime were the same guys Clinton was fighting before the famous "Black Hawk Down" incident. And now, since we eliminated the popularly supported decentralized Islamic court based government - Somali shipping gets to deal with increases in piracy on the high seas.

Now that's a movie.

When Are We Gonna Light This Candle?

2007-10-25T07:22:00.001-07:00

Patrick Foy over at Taki's Top Drawer has a great article on the growing probability of a full scale war with Iran. Here is a key passage discussing President Ahmadinejad's recent visit to Columbia University in NYC.

The New York tabloids, the fashion plates reading the news at the cable networks, and the more expensive ones at the non-cable networks, and all leading presidential candidates had the same reaction to Ahmadinejad’s visit. One wonders if they were handed the same script and talking points, prepared in one central office. More likely, they just knew what was expected of them. The commentators brought in from the “think tanks” to elevate the discussion were ready to have a cow. These “experts” sputtered predictable, unenlightened accusations at Ahmadinejad, repeating ad nauseam that he is a dictator (preposterous) as well as a “Holocaust denier” (a deliberate distortion), that Iran is working feverishly to acquire nuclear weapons (flat out untrue) which will be used “to wipe Israel off the map” (a mistranslation and another distortion), et cetera. Faced with such hysteria, one could be forgiven for thinking that the world was about to spin off its axis.

It's funny, only online do we learn the reality that many of the key quotes from Ahmadinejad about Israel and the Holocaust were mistranslations and distortions. Not that they matter anyway, but they do whip up the war fever among folks who don't bother to check if the talking heads are telling the truth or spitting bs.

Russia Is Not Scared of Iran, Are We?

2007-10-24T07:45:00.000-07:00

Today the AP ran a story with the headline, "Rice Says Iran is An Obstacle to US Goals In the Middle East." I am no apologist for Iran, but if they helped bring the Northern Alliance to the table in Afghanistan and they are re-building the infrastructure in Iraq - I kinda wonder what the US Goals really are.

Geography is stronger than rhetoric - the United States cannot isolate Iran in the Middle East any more than the United Kingdom can isolate Argentina in South America. The Iranians have money, technical know-how, and an interest in leading that part of the world - and outside the Iraq-Iran war, they have used those assets in peace.

Most of the story was just bs setting you up for the real story, that the US is backing off on European missile defense until Iran actually tests a ballistic missile. This is interesting because President Putin of Russia never believed the missile shield was about Iran in the first place.

The reality is that it is hard to tell what we are trying to do over there. We don't want "rogue" states with nukes, yet we offer to share nuclear technology with Egypt - home of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. We want peace and stability in Iraq, but we switch support between the Sunnis and the Shiites whenever one side gets too strong - keeping the battle raging in perpetuity. We hail the peacefulness of the Iraqi Kurd Autonomous Region, only to fail to go after the terrorist PKK there and forcing Turkey's hand. Guess what, the IKAR ain't peaceful any more. We give all this rhetoric about peace and stability in the region, while we send special forces into Iran to scout targets for a future attack.

The doublespeak would be sinister and diabolical if it wasn't for the fact that it feels like our foreign policy just doesn't make much sense at all.

More GOP Debate Goodness

2007-10-10T20:40:00.000-07:00

One of my co-bloggers at Wash U For Ron Paul did a great liveblog of the last GOP Debates in Michigan. Plenty of obvious pandering to the auto unions, and a lot of mindless support of ethanol subsidies. This observation is my favorite.

Huckabee is asked about ethanol, whether the free market should determine whether they are used. Huckabee says it's critical for national security and economic interests to use "biofuels." It's a tremendous boondoggle, in fact, and Huck, a pinko through and through, is pandering. Blathers about "Islamofascism," as if ethanol gives us independence from the Arab world! "We can't wait till another generation." I hate Huckabee.

The reality is that ethanol benefits two groups: the politically powerful corn farmers who grow the now premium priced corn, and the oil industry because now they can sell less efficient gasoline for a higher price. Oh, no one mentioned that 100% petro fuel is both cheaper and more efficient than ethanol. Or the fact that this means that when you buy gasoline with ethanol additives - you are buying more gas more often for a higher price than if the additive wasn't there. Well, now you know.

Corn-based ethanol subsidies disadvantages a lot of folks though: food manufacturers (veggies, beef, chicken, and other protein), sugar producers, and normal folks who get to pay higher prices for well - just about everything.

Pols at Americans For Prosperity - Missing the Point

2007-10-05T19:46:00.000-07:00

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani was truly leading the pack at the Americans For Prosperity event, claiming "extravagant spending" was the reason for GOP Congressional losses in 2006. Of course, overspending is a domestic issue - and never takes into account the $456 BILLION in supplemental expenditures (not including DoD annual budget requests) on the Iraq war. Never mind that Sen. Ted Stevens' "Bridge To Nowhere" or Sen. Clinton's "Bribes for Babies" is just a drop in the bucket comparatively.

It seems that the GOP candidates (save Ron Paul) are returning to the old school GOP strategy of attacking any kind of liberal domestic program or expenditure as excessive. The only problem is that we weren't dumping hundreds of billions of dollars in the sand in the 1980s and 1990s (even during Gulf War I). The party faithful will eat up the nostalgic rhetoric like twentysomethings over Transformers - but those who look at the math will find their rhetoric ringing hollow.

The strangest thing was the ghost of the Laffer Curve haunting the conference. The article indicates Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson all made references to it - although Giuliani stands out again by stressing the revenue benefits of the theory vs. the benefit to the taxpayer. It's funny, all this "self-condemnation" over spending - yet few calls to simply cut spending across the board (again, save Ron Paul).

This "bring back the good 'ol days of the GOP" is nothing but cotton candy laced with LSD. The reality is that you can't create a credible image that is equal parts George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Without Contractors, There Would Be No War in Iraq

2007-10-03T23:50:00.000-07:00

Perhaps that is a good thing.

The truth of the matter is that US troops cannot accomplish the mission in Iraq without contractors. Never mind what John Edwards tells you. He would have you believe that Blackwater USA are storm troopers from Star Wars, and we must "bring democracy back into our military." Ok, that last bit made zero sense. The truth is that of all the scandals in the GWOT - Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, secret CIA prisons - the shootout that is still under investigation pales in comparison. In fact, Blackwater has 100% fullfilled its mission of keeping diplomats and VIPs alive and in one piece.

Security contractors like Blackwater take care of VIP protection, logistics, and other vital missions in Iraq to free up soldiers for combat duty and patrol. According to the Washington Post, there are over 100,000 security contractors in Iraq - which rivals the size of the uniform military there. The number speak the truth, and we cannot prosecute the GWOT in Iraq without private help.

If Sen. Edwards wins the Presidency and makes good on his promise to eliminate the security contractors, he may as well bring the soldiers and marines home too.

Has McCain Even Read The Constitution?

2007-10-03T23:31:00.001-07:00

There are so many explanations why Sen. John McCain is having money troubles. Blowback from McCain-Feingold is one explanation (don't cross the lobbyists), another could be the fact that he really hasn't read the course material for running this country.

Here is what he said on Saturday regarding Christianity and the Constitution.

Later, McCain said, "I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values." He added that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

Wow, really? Because the actual U.S. Constitution says this (First Amemdment):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The bold piece is important - the Constitution explicitly forbids establishing the US of A as a Christian nation. This is of course in reaction to the feuds in Europe where countries like the United Kingdom are explicitly Christian (Anglican Protestant to be precise) by law.

I understand the need to pander to the Religious Right, but gee - making statements out of whole cloth is what Value Voters would call "lying."

Where Are You Gonna Get $20 Billion A Year?

2007-10-03T23:02:00.000-07:00

Everyone loves babies. We take pictures of them, we say they are cute even when they aren't, and politicians phrase every possible stance in terms of "protecting the children." Sen. Hillary Clinton took that bit one step further: she wants to give every baby born in the US $5000 a piece. The idea is to put the money in a savings account, so that they can use the money for college or a house down the line.

Unfortunately, the math gets in the way of the reality. First, such a program would cost $20 billion - $5K for the 4 million kids born every year. Unless the program is handled like Social Security, where the government could borrow against it, it basically amounts to a larger version of the Earned Income Tax Credit - which actually sounds good. Unfortunately, the only there are only three ways to pay for such a program: cut something else (HRC would never do it), raise taxes, or increase deficit spending.

The real problem with Sen. Clinton's program however is that giving every kid five large isn't going to encourage saving. When interest rates are low, the economy is in spending mode, not saving mode. And if the interest rate on a savings account is less than the rate of inflation - it doesn't make sense to save anyway.

It sounds bad, but thanks to inflation you are better off going into debt - because the money you pay back is worth less than the money you originally borrowed. If you get a low enough rate on your debt - you may even come out ahead. It's also why young people are encouraged to invest in high risk/high return stocks and funds for their 401k - they need to beat the rate of inflation while they are young and can work.

What would make more sense is a $5K credit for the parents when they have a kid. Baby expenses are huge - and if they can get a tax break that first year, it would lead to fewer headaches. But no one would ever go for that.

Tax Cuts Mean Nothing During The GWOT

2007-10-03T22:41:00.000-07:00

Fred Thompson doesn't talk a good game. He supports Bush on the war (like every other GOP candidate save Rep. Ron Paul), yet he is for limited government and decreasing government spending. Frankly, those two views are mathematically incompatible.

Some have seen this chart, but many have not.

The numbers are old - but the proportions are similar. Half of the Federal Budget, what you and I pay taxes into, is spent by the military. This doesn't include additional expenditures requested by the administration to go into Iraqi and Afghan missions. You can't cut a program here and an entitlement there and claim you have reduced the size of government. Nor will tax cuts make much difference in the economy when we are burying billions in the sand on the other side of the world.

You are either with GWB and the Global War on Terror, or you are for limited federal spending. You can't be both.

I Didn't Want To Do This

2007-10-03T22:39:00.001-07:00

But I am sick of the level of political discourse in this country. It's almost as if people say thing just because the tenor of the syllables of the words they make sound pretty - so they must make sense. They don't.

And I will tell you why.