The View From 1776

Read More...

One of liberal-progressive-socialism’s fundamental tenets was expounded in the mid-18th century by French Revolutionary philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau: people are naturally kind, benevolent, generous, and peaceful when they are not corrupted by a capitalist society that protects the rights of private property.

From this comes Senator Obama’s plan to levy higher taxes on the top earning and most innovative and productive members of society, as well as his eagerness to have tea parties, without preconditions, with the leaders of our foreign enemies.

The naivete of liberal-progressive-socialism has been tested on several occasions since the beginning of the 20th century.  It always has been found wanting.

Despite Senator Obama’s belief that rational discussion will solve every international conflict and Senator Kerry’s desire for sensitive relations with the putative community of nations, foreign policy is not a popularity contest.

For an excellent recap of the changing currents in foreign policy, read Power Play by Robert Kagan.

The nature of nations, like people, never changes. Today’s political realists say economics rather than military might has become the guiding principle of countries, but the conflict in Georgia shows otherwise…

Back to summary...

Read More...

The Wall Strteet Journal reports:

When Good Lizards Go Bad: Komodo Dragons Take Violent Turn

Villagers Blame Environmentalists
For Reptiles’ Mood; Ban on Goat Sacrifice
By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV
August 25, 2008;

Back to summary...

Read More...

When it was unpopular, Senator McCain stood up for victory in Iraq and pushed for what later became known as the successful Surge.

Senator Obama, of course, put his finger to the wind and followed public opinion down the path of least resistance.  He famously campaigned on a pledge to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq immediately.  He has since failed to acknowledge the effectiveness of the Surge, a denial that demeans the superior performance and valor of our troops.

He was joined in the demand for immediate withdrawal by defeatist Democrat/Socialists including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Hillary Clinton, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Congressman John Murtha, who declared Iraq a quagmire of defeat. 

The consequences of an immediate troop withdrawal would have been loss of credibility for the United States, emboldenment of Al Queda to strike us with terror attacks anywhere in the world, and an Iraq in feeble disarray, giving Iran the opportunity unopposed to move into the vacuum and make Iraq a client state.

With his support of immediate withdrawal of troops proven wrong, and implicitly admitting that he is a foreign policy novice, Senator Obama has endeavored to fill the yawning void by selecting as his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, long a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

What measure of solid foreign policy judgment does Senator Biden bring to the table?  With respect to Iraq and the struggle against Islamic jihad, what was the product of Senator Biden’s putative foreign policy expertise? 

In a May 1, 2006, op-ed article in the New York Times, Senator Biden and his foreign policy advisor Leslie H. Gelb wrote:

“It is increasingly clear that President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor.

“...The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group

Back to summary...

Read More...

The Democrat/Socialist Party wants you to believe that the already huge, unfunded entitlements under Social Security and MediCare are nothing we need worry about.

Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus wrote (Krugman vs. Krugman, November 21, 2007):

In liberal Democratic circles, the debate over Social Security has taken a dangerous “don’t worry, be happy” turn.

The argument has two equally dishonest components. The first is to deny that Social Security faces a daunting financing problem—one that will be much easier to fix (and less onerous for the low-income retirees that the head-in-the-sanders purport to care about) sooner rather than later. The second is to mischaracterize the arguments of those who advocate responsible action, accusing them of hyping the system’s woes.

Senator Obama proposes to raise taxes to deal with Social Security, the smaller problem, but he doesn’t really know whether his proposed tax hikes will do the job. 

Donald L. Luskin wrote (Obama’s Social Security Fine Print):

Mr. Obama angered liberals last year when he admitted that there was a “Social Security crisis.” But at least Mr. Obama’s base should be appeased now that his solution to the “crisis” is to soak the rich. One liberal columnist actually noted with glee the fact that this would take us back to top tax rates not seen since the 1970s.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Obama’s new tax would siphon off 0.4% of gross domestic product annually. Combined with Mr. Obama’s other tax-hike initiatives, “the total tax on labor would be close to 60 percent. In high-tax states like California and New York, the top rate would be even higher.”

Would it help Social Security’s financing problems? Mr. Obama has no idea. One of his senior economic advisers admitted to me that no one on the campaign has run any detailed models or performed any rigorous analysis. When one proposes an enormous tax increase, shouldn’t there at least be a spreadsheet somewhere?

 

A Wall Street Journal op-ed article notes that Obama’s Tax Plan Is Really a Welfare Plan that adds to the deficit.

Should we be worried?  Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, has no doubt.  The problem of unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare is gigantic, any way you measure it.  Read Storms on the Horizon, his speech to San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club of California on May 28, 2008.

The amount of money the Social Security system would need today to cover all unfunded liabilities from now on

Back to summary...