Those concerned about the Benghazi affair can't seem to figure out why the administration blew it so badly. They keep claiming "coverup" and "election politics" and similar charges. Those charges probably have some validity, but they don't really explain why the administration hopelessly bungled an obvious situation.
How someone analyzes a situation depends in large part on his or her predispositions. When looking at America's role in the world, this administration starts from an attitude that we've been the bad guys, and we need to atone. So when there are demonstrations against a video made in America, the people in the administration quickly conclude that it's another example of American bullying that - whether they publicly admit it or not - justifies the anti-American response. Then when the initial intelligence coming out of Benghazi is murky, it's easy to jump to the conclusion that what's going on there is just another response to the video. Having publicly taken that position, it's difficult to admit error. And when error finally is admitted, the admission can't include a confession that the predisposition was what led to it. That would bring into question the underlying premise, which someone in government - including the President - can't do without threatening his or her political future. Only a true statesman will do that, realizing the risk it entails. This President has yet to exhibit much statesmanship. Now that he's been re-elected, he could admit - to himself and to the public - the whole true story. Do you think he will?
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
War on Women
Yesterday's news events say volumes about attitudes towards women. Note:
1. Three Republican senators expressed criticism of Susan Rice. They included Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, in part to blunt any charges from the Democrats or the press that the Republicans were attacking women.
2. President Obama then attacked Senators McCain and Graham, but never mentioned Ayotte. Who is being sexist?
3. President Obama then defended Rice as if she were a little girl - not a senior administration spokesperson - who needed his protection against the big bad Republican men. Who is being sexist?
4. NPR reported this morning that McCain and Graham - not mentioning Ayotte - had criticized Rice, echoing Obama's charges. Is this objective reporting?
5. Nancy Pelosi announced her candidacy to be minority leader in the House surrounded only by women. Can you imagine the outcry from the press and Democrats if Boehner announce his candidacy surrounded only by men? What a double standard, and how hypocritical.
And it's the Democrats who claim the Republicans have a war on women?
1. Three Republican senators expressed criticism of Susan Rice. They included Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, in part to blunt any charges from the Democrats or the press that the Republicans were attacking women.
2. President Obama then attacked Senators McCain and Graham, but never mentioned Ayotte. Who is being sexist?
3. President Obama then defended Rice as if she were a little girl - not a senior administration spokesperson - who needed his protection against the big bad Republican men. Who is being sexist?
4. NPR reported this morning that McCain and Graham - not mentioning Ayotte - had criticized Rice, echoing Obama's charges. Is this objective reporting?
5. Nancy Pelosi announced her candidacy to be minority leader in the House surrounded only by women. Can you imagine the outcry from the press and Democrats if Boehner announce his candidacy surrounded only by men? What a double standard, and how hypocritical.
And it's the Democrats who claim the Republicans have a war on women?
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Book Burners
I work out at a local gym facility in a pretty left wing area of western Massachusetts. The weight room has a magazine rack so people can use reading materials while they use the cardio equipment. Gym members often bring in publications from home that they put in the rack.
One member always brings in the latest copy of "The Nation," which is an opinion publication espousing the "progressive" viewpoint. To give people a little variety, I often bring in the latest copy of "American Rifleman." The person who brings in The Nation always tears off the address information; I don't tear off the address information on the American Rifleman. That says something, but I'm not sure what.
The copies of The Nation stay around for a while until they're too old to be current. But the copies of American Rifleman don't because someone throws them in the trash almost as quickly as I put them in the rack. We all know that people on the left don't like to even think about viewpoints contrary to their own, let alone debate them. But preventing others from exposure to contrary viewpoints in this manner is just classic book burning. There are many historical examples of book burning. It's always done by those who think they're views are correct, and that others shouldn't be exposed to "heretical" opinions. I leave it to the reader to draw conclusions from this.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Jobs and Oil
How often can you solve two problems with one policy? The folks in Washington claim they want to do everything possible to create jobs. And they want to stop the enormous flow of dollars out of the U.S. to oil producing countries. If government (and its environmentalist partners) would stop impeding - and start promoting - nuclear power, we'd make a dent in both problems.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Health Care Reform
Whatever you think of Obamacare, it is clear that it didn't attack the biggest problem: out of control costs. That should be the number one priority of the new Congress.
There's an old adage applicable to the social sciences that says "never look for a complicated explanation when a simple one will do." Congress should apply that adage when thinking about health care costs. Here's a simple fix that would be a good start: Institute a $20 co-pay for Medicare. That would instantly partially accomplish three goals of handling the cost of government. First, those who use a government service should pay part of its cost (think admission fees to national parks). Second, there would be a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the governmental outlay for Medicare. Third, seniors would cut back on going to the doctor for the sniffles, which they do now all the time, as I can attest to from personal experience.
While we're on the subject of simple fixes, let's also change Medicare's silly and inefficient policy that allows reimbursement to the doctor only if the patient comes in, not if the doctor gives advice over the phone. That would also reduce our gasoline consumption.
There's an old adage applicable to the social sciences that says "never look for a complicated explanation when a simple one will do." Congress should apply that adage when thinking about health care costs. Here's a simple fix that would be a good start: Institute a $20 co-pay for Medicare. That would instantly partially accomplish three goals of handling the cost of government. First, those who use a government service should pay part of its cost (think admission fees to national parks). Second, there would be a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the governmental outlay for Medicare. Third, seniors would cut back on going to the doctor for the sniffles, which they do now all the time, as I can attest to from personal experience.
While we're on the subject of simple fixes, let's also change Medicare's silly and inefficient policy that allows reimbursement to the doctor only if the patient comes in, not if the doctor gives advice over the phone. That would also reduce our gasoline consumption.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Income Tax Nonsense
I'm watching the cries of anguish coming from the politicos on the left about the unfairness and unwise fiscal consequences of not raising income taxes on the "rich." The anguished cries would have a bit more credibility if they were advocating raising income taxes on everyone, not just "the other guy."
I'm always surprised that the "tax the rich" folks don't seem to have any sense of the moral and ethical aspects of taxing the other guy to spend as they see fit. Maybe they'd have a better feeling for it if we made the following proposal to them:
Depending on how you run the numbers, somewhere between 65% and 80% of all federal tax revenues go to making transfer payments, i.e., social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. So, as a practical matter, the business of the federal government is collecting money from the few and distributing it to the many. Rather than wasting money on massive bureaucracies to do that, let's eliminate the middle man. In most cities and suburbs and rural areas, everyone knows who has the money. Let's set aside one day a year when all the people who want the money go knocking on the doors of the people who have the money, and make them cough up whatever the seekers demand. We could get rid of hundreds of thousands of federal workers, who might actually find productive jobs. Then the federal government would shrink back to just being the government, i.e., focusing on the military, foreign affairs, managing federal lands, etc.
Am I Jonathan Swift?
I'm always surprised that the "tax the rich" folks don't seem to have any sense of the moral and ethical aspects of taxing the other guy to spend as they see fit. Maybe they'd have a better feeling for it if we made the following proposal to them:
Depending on how you run the numbers, somewhere between 65% and 80% of all federal tax revenues go to making transfer payments, i.e., social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. So, as a practical matter, the business of the federal government is collecting money from the few and distributing it to the many. Rather than wasting money on massive bureaucracies to do that, let's eliminate the middle man. In most cities and suburbs and rural areas, everyone knows who has the money. Let's set aside one day a year when all the people who want the money go knocking on the doors of the people who have the money, and make them cough up whatever the seekers demand. We could get rid of hundreds of thousands of federal workers, who might actually find productive jobs. Then the federal government would shrink back to just being the government, i.e., focusing on the military, foreign affairs, managing federal lands, etc.
Am I Jonathan Swift?
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Lisa Jackson and the EPA
Lisa Jackson wrote an op ed piece in today's WSJ, extolling the EPA and the wonderful things it has wrought. Among other things, she claims that EPA and other regulations have created 1.5 million jobs in what she calls the "environmental protection industry."
I can reduce unemployment easily. I can put two people at every cash register instead of one, and thereby cut the unemployment rate dramatically. But have I done anything worthwhile? No, because I've reduced productivity, and what I need to do to really solve the unemployment problem is increase productivity. When FDR put all those people to work on public works projects, the aggregate wealth of the country was increased, because they were improving roads and bridges and other infrastructure. (Whether we got the right amount of bang for the buck can be debated, but not the fundamental idea.) Employing lots of people to do environmental analyses, prepare impact statements, protect endangered species, figure out how to reduce stack emissions, etc., may or may not have a socially useful purpose, but together all that work reduces productivity. The fact that many people are employed doing it is no different than my idea of putting two people at every cash register. Trying to justify environmental regulation on economic grounds is impossible; it's simply an attempt to disguise the economic impact.
The "green energy" movement is one of the worst manifestations of this subterfuge. Every unit of energy produced by wind or solar increases the cost of energy production, which is why government subsidies are required. If you think the world must be saved from pollution, fine. But stop trying to say it's good economics. It's not.
I can reduce unemployment easily. I can put two people at every cash register instead of one, and thereby cut the unemployment rate dramatically. But have I done anything worthwhile? No, because I've reduced productivity, and what I need to do to really solve the unemployment problem is increase productivity. When FDR put all those people to work on public works projects, the aggregate wealth of the country was increased, because they were improving roads and bridges and other infrastructure. (Whether we got the right amount of bang for the buck can be debated, but not the fundamental idea.) Employing lots of people to do environmental analyses, prepare impact statements, protect endangered species, figure out how to reduce stack emissions, etc., may or may not have a socially useful purpose, but together all that work reduces productivity. The fact that many people are employed doing it is no different than my idea of putting two people at every cash register. Trying to justify environmental regulation on economic grounds is impossible; it's simply an attempt to disguise the economic impact.
The "green energy" movement is one of the worst manifestations of this subterfuge. Every unit of energy produced by wind or solar increases the cost of energy production, which is why government subsidies are required. If you think the world must be saved from pollution, fine. But stop trying to say it's good economics. It's not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)