Due to an extended vacation, updates may be spotty or completely nonexistent for the next couple weeks. Probably completely nonexistent.
If you find yourself unable to cope without conservative commentary, please visit some of my favorites:
Reason has great libertarian commentary, John Stossel's weekly column can be found there. Nick Gillespie also does amazing work. My hands down favorite.
George F. Will is a great level headed conservative who opposes the war, I don't always agree with him but he makes compelling arguments.
Pat Buchanan is a paleoconservative whose protectionist arguments I disagree with but he always makes his points.
Drudge Report is a great place to get headlines of current news. Some commentary here but mostly articles from major newspapers like the NYT.
Charles Krauthammer is more of a Neocon but still has thoughtful pieces. It's OK to call him a neocon because he is, in fact, Jewish. Sorry liberal media, only Jews can be neocons, just ask Irving Kristol who invented the term.
Monday, June 28, 2010
McChrystal Out, Petraeus In
What was McChrystal thinking? While chatting up a Rolling Stone reporter, the general managed to trash the civilian leadership (read: the White House) of the war. Some of the points I found enlightening like Obama meeting McChrystal for the first time and making nothing more than a photo-op out of the whole deal with no talk of substance. Others I found merely redundant, apparently McChrystal thinks Biden is a moron which puts him in the company of not only most Americans but most Democrats (no poll linked, just ask one). As bad as the photo-op meeting with the President must have been, Rolling Stone is not the place to voice your outrage.
It's hard to say what the result of McChrystal's dismissal might be. Changing generals is a legitimate way to change the tide in a war. With June facing up to be the bloodiest month in Afghanistan, this might merely be a less critical way to push a general with a flawed vision aside. The question is was it for the that reason? If instead it was due to the Rolling Stone article, Obama is not living up to his idol. As Reason reports "Once, when Lincoln paid an evening visit to his top commander, George McClellan, the famously arrogant general came home and went to bed without so much as acknowledging the president. Lincoln shrugged it off, saying he would hold McClellan's horse if it would produce a victory."
Obama inheriting two wars, one of which is going poorly at the moment, would be better served by a victory than a dismissal of a general who insulted him. The AP is reporting that the Petraeus will continue McChrystal's strategy which begs the question, why was McChrystal not severely dressed down (as well he should have been) instead of dismissed entirely?
Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, certainly said worse in public about Obama and did so in paid advertisement running all over the country. Bill Clinton, a White House insider, dismissed the Obama as a purely racial candidiate during the South Carolina primaries. Many of Clinton's former advisers now serve the President, many of which have probably said rude or disparaging things in the past about the current Commander-in-Chief. Obama reached out to these people for a political return as any good politician would do and many accepted his offer, also as any good politician would do. Why didn't Obama reach out to McChrystal for political expediency since he still utilizes the general's strategy?
Regardless of the President's reasoning, General Petraeus has my support and I hope he can turn around Afghanistan as he did Iraq. If Obama made a misstep, he corrected himself quickly by replacing him with a genuine war hero with a proven track record. I suppose I too am wary about the civilian leadership under this Administration.
It's hard to say what the result of McChrystal's dismissal might be. Changing generals is a legitimate way to change the tide in a war. With June facing up to be the bloodiest month in Afghanistan, this might merely be a less critical way to push a general with a flawed vision aside. The question is was it for the that reason? If instead it was due to the Rolling Stone article, Obama is not living up to his idol. As Reason reports "Once, when Lincoln paid an evening visit to his top commander, George McClellan, the famously arrogant general came home and went to bed without so much as acknowledging the president. Lincoln shrugged it off, saying he would hold McClellan's horse if it would produce a victory."
Obama inheriting two wars, one of which is going poorly at the moment, would be better served by a victory than a dismissal of a general who insulted him. The AP is reporting that the Petraeus will continue McChrystal's strategy which begs the question, why was McChrystal not severely dressed down (as well he should have been) instead of dismissed entirely?
Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, certainly said worse in public about Obama and did so in paid advertisement running all over the country. Bill Clinton, a White House insider, dismissed the Obama as a purely racial candidiate during the South Carolina primaries. Many of Clinton's former advisers now serve the President, many of which have probably said rude or disparaging things in the past about the current Commander-in-Chief. Obama reached out to these people for a political return as any good politician would do and many accepted his offer, also as any good politician would do. Why didn't Obama reach out to McChrystal for political expediency since he still utilizes the general's strategy?
Regardless of the President's reasoning, General Petraeus has my support and I hope he can turn around Afghanistan as he did Iraq. If Obama made a misstep, he corrected himself quickly by replacing him with a genuine war hero with a proven track record. I suppose I too am wary about the civilian leadership under this Administration.
Friday, June 18, 2010
End The Recession By Taxing the Rich!
After 9/11, the stock market tanked and unemployment rose. Some economists predicted a massive recession bordering on depression. America hadn't been hit by a major attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor, they reasoned, anything could happen. Then-President Bush enacted across-the-board tax cuts and the economy recovered. Based on this reasoning, Obama has a blueprint of how to end the current recession if only he would use it.
The Bush tax cuts are due to expire January 1st, 2011. Obama has said he will let them expire, thereby raising taxes on all Americans. Once the taxes expire, the highest federal personal income tax rate will go to 39.6% from 35%. But it is not only income taxes that will rise. The highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. At a time when the stock market can lose a thousand points in a week and a half do we really want to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains?
Although the income tax will go up for all Americans and anyone with a 401K will be affected by the other hikes, the rich are all Obama and his team want to talk about. Hillary Clinton recently said that the wealthy do not pay their fair share. However, the New York Times found that "In 2006, the top quintile of households earned 55.7 percent of pretax income and paid 69.3 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 18.8 percent of income and paid 28.3 percent of taxes." Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie explains this better in his video than I can so I defer to him:
But who cares if the rich are taxed into oblivion to pay for government services? I'm not wealthy and no one I know is so it won't affect me, right? Wrong. Taxing the rich is the same as taxing investors and employers. It is apparent from anemic performance of the market that we should not be raising taxing on those who would infuse the market with cash. The unemployment rate similarly implies that no good would come from further taxing employers. Raising taxes on everyone, including the rich, is the quickest way to kill off a recovery and lead us into a double dip recession. Arthur Laffer, of the Laffer Curve fame, agrees. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the economist says that the expiration of the tax cuts is even fooling people into thinking we are in recovery now. His reasoning is that companies are pushing as much production as possible into this year from next year due to tax incentives. The results are twofold, unpredicted economic growth this year followed by lackluster performance next year.
Even when the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers foot the bill for almost 30% of our nation's taxes, it is never enough for liberals. They don't think in absolute terms when it comes to taxes or entitlement programs. We are always told that we could do so much more with just a little more money but the request never ends no matter how much money the government takes. In good economic times, this is an annoyance. In bad economic times, it is a recipe for disaster.
The Bush tax cuts are due to expire January 1st, 2011. Obama has said he will let them expire, thereby raising taxes on all Americans. Once the taxes expire, the highest federal personal income tax rate will go to 39.6% from 35%. But it is not only income taxes that will rise. The highest federal dividend tax rate pops up to 39.6% from 15%, the capital gains tax rate to 20% from 15%, and the estate tax rate to 55% from zero. At a time when the stock market can lose a thousand points in a week and a half do we really want to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains?
Although the income tax will go up for all Americans and anyone with a 401K will be affected by the other hikes, the rich are all Obama and his team want to talk about. Hillary Clinton recently said that the wealthy do not pay their fair share. However, the New York Times found that "In 2006, the top quintile of households earned 55.7 percent of pretax income and paid 69.3 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 18.8 percent of income and paid 28.3 percent of taxes." Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie explains this better in his video than I can so I defer to him:
But who cares if the rich are taxed into oblivion to pay for government services? I'm not wealthy and no one I know is so it won't affect me, right? Wrong. Taxing the rich is the same as taxing investors and employers. It is apparent from anemic performance of the market that we should not be raising taxing on those who would infuse the market with cash. The unemployment rate similarly implies that no good would come from further taxing employers. Raising taxes on everyone, including the rich, is the quickest way to kill off a recovery and lead us into a double dip recession. Arthur Laffer, of the Laffer Curve fame, agrees. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the economist says that the expiration of the tax cuts is even fooling people into thinking we are in recovery now. His reasoning is that companies are pushing as much production as possible into this year from next year due to tax incentives. The results are twofold, unpredicted economic growth this year followed by lackluster performance next year.
Even when the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers foot the bill for almost 30% of our nation's taxes, it is never enough for liberals. They don't think in absolute terms when it comes to taxes or entitlement programs. We are always told that we could do so much more with just a little more money but the request never ends no matter how much money the government takes. In good economic times, this is an annoyance. In bad economic times, it is a recipe for disaster.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
No Really, The Leak Isn't Obama's Responsibility
Obama is responsible for our anemic footing on the War on Terror. Obama is responsible for nationalizing industries like Chevy and Chrysler. Obama is responsible for the inevitable double dip recession due to his insistence on short term stimulus rather than long term tax relief. Obama is responsible for puffing up tin-pot dictators around the world with his Blame-America-First mentality. However, Obama is NOT responsible for the oil leak, nor is he repsonsible for cleaning it up, BP is.
Of course, Obama didn't do himself any favors by offering to take "full responsibility" for the disaster. He thought the Top Kill was going to work and the matter would be resolved in days. Taking responsibility when what you think is a winning strategy is already being implemented is a cheap way to take credit for the win itself. Unfortunately for Obama, the plan didn't work and his approval ratings hit a new low. Now the spill is being compared to Bush's Hurricane Katrina and Carter's Iran Hostage Crisis. As Obama weaves and bobs on the issue of the spill, which the federal government is ill-equipped to deal with, he seems like he is trying to shirk his responsibility now that the task has become more difficult. Pointing the finger at BP (which is correct, even if it is superfluous for him to do so) is looking to more and more people like he is merely trying to take the attention off of himself.
If Obama is getting an unfair shake in the media, BP is being savaged by comparison. A federal criminal investigation has been launched into why the leak occurred and what has been done to contain it since. BP should make full and complete restitution to everyone affected and pay to clean up the mess but clamoring for executives to go to jail spooks the industry and, in turn, the stock market as a whole. It also doesn't help speed up the process one iota. Obama pledges to keep his "boot to the neck" of BP but knowing that they will have to make full restitution, aren't market forces already putting the "boot to the neck" more effectively than government ever could? Isn't BP looking to minimize the damage done to the coast for the purpose of minimizing damage done to their bottom line? Isn't government (as it always does) just looking for a politically good outcome, either taking credit for fixing the leak or pushing blame off on BP entirely?
Because Obama believes government oversight is necessary for practically everything, he raced to make this a political story. Of course, Obama's faith in government is misplaced and the government's response has disappointed him as many conservatives could have predicted. Government's only proper role in all of this is to ensure that BP cleans up their mess in toto.
Government should only do what people are unable to do for themselves. In short that might only be command the armed forces, run the court system, police the streets and a few other narrowly defined tasks. BP can and will plug the leak. They will do so as quickly as they can at whatever cost necessary because the financial responsibility put upon them to clean up the aftermath is easily greater than any consequence Obama could dream up.
Of course, Obama didn't do himself any favors by offering to take "full responsibility" for the disaster. He thought the Top Kill was going to work and the matter would be resolved in days. Taking responsibility when what you think is a winning strategy is already being implemented is a cheap way to take credit for the win itself. Unfortunately for Obama, the plan didn't work and his approval ratings hit a new low. Now the spill is being compared to Bush's Hurricane Katrina and Carter's Iran Hostage Crisis. As Obama weaves and bobs on the issue of the spill, which the federal government is ill-equipped to deal with, he seems like he is trying to shirk his responsibility now that the task has become more difficult. Pointing the finger at BP (which is correct, even if it is superfluous for him to do so) is looking to more and more people like he is merely trying to take the attention off of himself.
If Obama is getting an unfair shake in the media, BP is being savaged by comparison. A federal criminal investigation has been launched into why the leak occurred and what has been done to contain it since. BP should make full and complete restitution to everyone affected and pay to clean up the mess but clamoring for executives to go to jail spooks the industry and, in turn, the stock market as a whole. It also doesn't help speed up the process one iota. Obama pledges to keep his "boot to the neck" of BP but knowing that they will have to make full restitution, aren't market forces already putting the "boot to the neck" more effectively than government ever could? Isn't BP looking to minimize the damage done to the coast for the purpose of minimizing damage done to their bottom line? Isn't government (as it always does) just looking for a politically good outcome, either taking credit for fixing the leak or pushing blame off on BP entirely?
Because Obama believes government oversight is necessary for practically everything, he raced to make this a political story. Of course, Obama's faith in government is misplaced and the government's response has disappointed him as many conservatives could have predicted. Government's only proper role in all of this is to ensure that BP cleans up their mess in toto.
Government should only do what people are unable to do for themselves. In short that might only be command the armed forces, run the court system, police the streets and a few other narrowly defined tasks. BP can and will plug the leak. They will do so as quickly as they can at whatever cost necessary because the financial responsibility put upon them to clean up the aftermath is easily greater than any consequence Obama could dream up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
