Posted by: john frum ||
08/03/2009 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Having just repaid our War Debt of sixty years, we can handle some more, just give me my bonus, see you in Oz, I'm outta here.
Of the Brittish, they have been divided and ruled.
WASHINGTON - For the most skilled and toughest North Korean negotiator, the task of pushing the line while remaining on cordial terms with the man across the table carries inherent risks. A change in policy may be fatal. One mistake, and you may never live to make another.
Take Kim Kye-gwan, the North Korean vice foreign minister with whom the United States' Christopher Hill spent years cozying up with Hill in venues from Berlin to Singapore to Beijing when Hill was US nuclear envoy and assistant secretary of state for Asia and the Pacific.
Kim seemed like a pretty tough guy, conning Hill into deals such as the six-party agreement of September 2005, under which North Korea vaguely agreed to do away with its nukes in return for multi-billions of god-knows-what.
And that wasn't all. Kim then got Hill to sign on to two deals in 2007 under which North Korea agreed in careful detail first to disable and then dismantle its entire nuclear program. All the US had to do was remove North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism - something former president George W Bush was glad to do in his waning months in office.
So what is Kim's reward for all his success in bamboozling the Americans into thinking they had succeeded in getting North Korea to give up its nukes? He seems to have disappeared, and nobody has a clue as to whether he's dead or alive, working on a chicken farm or sent to a prison for re-education.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/03/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Looks like some new additions to the "human scum" list...
WASHINGTON -- California's budget debacle holds a lesson for America, but one we will probably ignore. It's easy to attribute the state's protracted budget stalemate, now temporarily resolved with about $26 billion of spending cuts and accounting gimmicks, to the deep recession and California's peculiar politics. Up to a point, that's true. Representing an eighth of the U.S. economy, California has been harder hit than most states. Unemployment, now 11.6 percent (national average: 9.5 percent), could top 13 percent in 2010, says economist Eduardo Martinez of Moody's Economy.com. Meanwhile, the requirement that any tax increase muster a two-thirds vote in the Legislature promotes paralysis. Democrats prefer tax hikes to spending cuts, and Republicans can block higher taxes.
All this produced the recent drama: plunging tax revenues and the state's resulting huge budget deficits; endless negotiations between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders; the deadlock that led the state to issue scrip (in effect, IOUs) to pay bills; and a final agreement on a 2009-10 budget. But there is also a bigger story with national implications. California has reached a tipping point. Its government made more promises than its economy can easily support. For years, state leaders papered over the contradiction with loans and modest changes. By overwhelming these expedients, the recession triggered an inevitable reckoning.
Here's the national lesson. There's a collision between high and rising demands for government services and the capacity of the economy to produce the income and tax revenues to pay for those demands. That's true of California, where poor immigrants and their children have increased pressures for more government services. It's also true of the nation, where an aging population raises Social Security and Medicare spending. California is leading the transformation of politics into a form of collective torture: pay more (higher taxes), get less (lower services).
Make no mistake: The spending cuts and tax increases the state enacted to bridge its budget deficits are not cosmetic. In February, the Legislature agreed to a penny increase in the state sales tax, bringing the total -- including local sales taxes -- to about 9 cents or more. Top income tax rates, already among the highest in the country, were raised. So were motor vehicle registration fees. Spending cuts approved in February and July are deep. Together, the cuts equal almost 30 percent of the general revenue fund and will affect schools, prisons, colleges and welfare.
The state's liberal establishment is in mourning. "Reversing 40 years of progress" is how Jean Ross of the California Budget Project, a liberal research and advocacy group, put it in one blog. Some welfare benefits will be cut by half. California's student-teacher ratio, now about a third above the national average, will probably go even higher. The University of California system lost 20 percent of its state payments. It's raising tuition and student fees 9.3 percent, imposing salary reductions of 4 percent to 10 percent on more than 100,000 workers, and delaying faculty hires.
National parallels again seem apparent. Federal budget deficits -- reflecting the urge to spend and not tax -- predate the recession and, as baby boomers retire, will survive any recovery. Amazingly, the Obama administration would worsen the long-term outlook by expanding federal health insurance coverage. There's much mushy thinking about how we'll muddle through.
California has pioneered this sort of delusion. The presumption was that a dynamic economy would pay for expansive government. But California's relative economic performance has actually deteriorated. In the 1980s, the state's economy grew much faster than the national economy; annual growth averaged 5.1 percent versus 3.1 percent. In the present decade, the gap is smaller -- 2.9 percent versus 2.3 percent -- and much of the state's advantage reflects the unsustainable housing boom, of which California was the epicenter.
On paper, the state could solve its budget problems by raising taxes further. But in practice, that might backfire by weakening the economy and tax base. California scores poorly in state ratings of business climate. In a CNBC survey, it ranked 32nd overall but last in "cost of business" and 49th in "business friendliness." IT (Intel, Google, Hewlett Packard) and biotechnology remain strengths, but some traditional industries are struggling. High costs, as well as tax breaks from other states, have caused movie studios to shift production from Southern California. In 1996, feature films involved 14,500 production days in the Los Angeles area, says FilmL.A.; in 2008, the figure was half that.
So California is stretched between a precarious economy and a strong popular desire for government. The state's wrenching experience suggests that, as a nation, we should begin to pare back government's future commitments to avoid a similar fate. But California's experience also suggests we'll remain in denial, a prisoner of wishful thinking, until the fateful reckoning arrives sometime in the unimagined future.
#1
California's predicament is a self-inflicted wound. The econazis have destroyed the business climate in California through excessive regulations and innumerable lawsuits. Regulatory commissions and "public interest" lawsuits are the kudzu of California. They truly have killed the golden goose. Now they are destroying California's agricultural industry. The central valley is heading back to a desert because of water restrictions in the delta and can anyone doubt that the Imperial Valley will be far behind.
Americans are streaming back into auto showrooms, and one reason is the cash for clunkers subsidy. Democrats are naturally claiming this is a great success, while Republicans are claiming that because the program has run out of clunker cash so quickly, this proves government cant run the health-care system. How do we elect these people? What the clunker policy really proves is that Americans arent stupid and will let some other taxpayer buy them a free lunch if given the chance.
The buying spree is good for the car companies, if only for the short term and for certain car models. Its good, too, for folks whove been sitting on an older car or truck but werent sure they had the cash to trade it in for something new. Now they get a taxpayer subsidy of up to $4,500, which on some models can be 25% of the purchase price. Its hardly surprising that Peter is willing to use a donation from his neighbor Paul, midwifed by Uncle Sugar, to class up his driveway.
On the other hand, this is crackpot economics. The subsidy wont add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayers pocket from someone elses, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway. By this logic, everyone should burn the sofa and dining room set and refurnish the homestead every couple of years.
It isnt clear this will even lead to more auto production over time, since the clunker cash may simply cause buyers to move their purchases forward. GDP will get a fillip in the third and perhaps fourth quarters, which will please the Obama Administration. But the test will be if auto sales hold up next year and into the future once the clunker checks go away. The debate over the subsidy may even have prolonged this years auto slump as buyers delayed their purchases waiting for the free lunch.
All of Washington professes to be surprised that the $1 billion allocated to the subsidy has been used up so quickly, but giving away money is one thing government knows how to do. The Clunkers who are in Congress are now patting themselves on the back for their great success, and the House quickly voted to pass out another $2 billion in clunker coupons. With a $1.8 trillion budget deficit, whos going to notice this pocket change?
Clearly, we spoilsports need an attitude adjustment to Washingtons new economics. And since money is no object, lets give everyone a $4,500 voucher for other consumer goods. Lets have taxpayers subsidize the purchase of kitchen appliances, womens clothing, the latest Big Bertha driverour Taylor-made is certainly a clunkerand new fishing boats. These are hardly less deserving of subsidies than cars, and as long as everyone thinks we can conjure wealth out of $4,500 giveaways, lets go all the way.
#2
On the other hand, it IS less counterr-productive than most of their schemes. For only $4500 we get to stimulate the sale of a new car. But wait, there's more! We also get to improve the national fleet fuel economy. And reduce the CO2 emissions per mile. And the government (or dealer - I dunno) should still be able to recoup a hundred bucks or so from the scrap metal value. That's got to beat spending it on studying whether s*x (or is it sox?) causes babies or such.
#1
I couldn't make it past the bit about the corporate media and right-wing television networks taking aim at poor defenseless Barack. Did they actually get around to making a point?
#2
Geez, I remember this guy when he was, "Danny Schecter: Your News Dissecter" on WBCN the big alternative rock station in Boston in the 70's and 80's. He was a sixties derelict back then. I thought he was dead.
#3
The article is a pathetic whine full of strawmen and logical mistakes. Most of the comments are no better.
Seems Obama told a few fibs and sold "hope" instead of reality and people are starting to see how niave he is/was as he continues Bush policies while blaming Bush a d while trying to shove his own massive pork through the system rather than fixing the economy.
I'd always felt that whomever was elected in 2008 would be a one term President because of the economy. I also felt it would be good to have some distance from Bush the next time the GOP ran. A Democrativ victory did that. My real fear was a supermajority which gives the donks no excuses but also enables them to do some serious long term damage in a short time. I think we might see another Reaganish 12 year domination of the white house if the right person runs in 2012 (don't ask me who it is but the tea parties indicate people are ready) but the I suspect Obamas second year will be about packing the courts with young lefties.
#9
My favorite part was this: Can progressives fight the three front war that is needed --- against the vicious right, against the slippery center, and for a more comprehensive and empowering agenda?
Let's ignore for a moment whatever the hell fighting for 'a more comprehensive and empowering agenda' means. Given that voters self-describe themselves (see Vote By Ideology) as liberal 22%, moderate 44% and conservative 34%, saying you are fighting against the vicious right and slippery center means you are going against almost 80% of the country. Good luck with that, you progressively crazier progressives!
#10
Why is economic justice a priority for so few activists when these issues impact so many?
Because most "activists" are well educated upper middle class people, or hippie young people without kids to support, and with upper middle class or richer parents, and are more concerned about "liberal issues" (civil liberties, antimilitarism) than about social democratic issues. The latter are the concerns of trade unions, elected pols, and at least some ordinary voters.
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
08/03/2009 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"Because envy is evil, but that brand of envy "
Faulkner once wrote, in Absalom, Absalom, on the difference between simple covetousness and envy. The former involves only the desire for the object, while the latter entails hatred the owner of the object.
For poor people to desire, say good health insurance, or even a McMansion, whether by private enterprise or the working of public policy, is not the same negative moral category as someone who actively hates those who have good health insurance or Mcmansions. Should someone without hatred simply support a policy to get them health insurance or Mcmansions, that policy should be debated on strictly pragmatic grounds, without the moral overtones associated with attacks on "envy".
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
08/03/2009 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#12
"Seems Obama told a few fibs and sold "hope""
he mainly sold hope and other fluff as a way to overcome Hillary. Once nominated, he merely had to be the Democrat.
Obama is NOT more able to achieve change than Hillary would have been. In that sense, his "fibs" have been shown up. But I, like most Hillary supporters, never believed that anyway. he has been thus far a better Prez, than I expected, or GIVEN his inexperience, I had any right to expect.
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
08/03/2009 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#14
has been thus far a better Prez, than I expected, or GIVEN his inexperience, I had any right to expect.
'Less bad' might be a better term, and on international stuff I think I agree. Nationally though is the opposite - I thought he would only nudge us leftward, but we're in a full throttle power-slide and we'll either go all the way Euroleft or crash flaming into the grandstands.
#15
It wouldn't be so much about overthrowing Bammo as it would be about reasserting limited, Constitutional government and federalism. Bammo the man is irrelevant - he's just the guy who reads the teleprompter.
#16
"Kool aid" is a good reference for loonies, not for any who disagree with you.
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
08/03/2009 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I don't think you're a loony, hawk. I do think the Democratic party you seem to believe in died about 40 years ago. Back then, Barry couldn't have been elected dog catcher.
#19
tu - conservatives are always talking about how the dem party has changed so much, when attacking policies where the Dems of today are identical to or MORE conservative then FDR, Truman etc. Keynsian fiscal stimulus, support for govt role in health insurance, are policies Truman would have been comfortable with. I suspect HST, certainly FDR, would have been willing to take more aggressively statist policies on the banking sector than Geithner has. Leave aside cultural issues and for policy, and the Dems of today, even the BHO admin is NOT historically lefty. The folks who think the Dems have changed since the good old days, must be nostalgic for the Grover Cleveland administration.
You are right that 40 years and more ago the dems tended to nominate more obvious establishment candidates and only made exceptions for Senators with extraordinarily rich fathers. It was the GOP that nominated surprises, ironically also named Barry.
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
08/03/2009 16:26 Comments ||
Top||
#20
"Where is the individual responsibility party? "
individual responsibility is a private virtue, its not a policy position. In american politics today, it tends to be a platitude to avoid dealing with the details of public policy.
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
08/03/2009 16:30 Comments ||
Top||
#21
"Overthrow" is the wrong word, you meant to say "Impeached".
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/03/2009 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
#22
individual responsibility is a private virtue, its not a policy position. In american politics today, it tends to be a platitude to avoid dealing with the details of public policy.
Bollocks. Individual responsibility is the opposite of collective responsibility. When the left tells us they want to handle something collectively (i.e. via government, and mostly the federal government) the appropriate response is often to point out that this is an area where personal responsibility should obtain instead.
Take, for example, the recent move in the UK to install cameras in homes so that the government can verify that children are going to bed on time. The UK government is making bed time an issue of collective responsibility. It is not a mere platitude to respond that this is an area where the parents should be exercising their own, individual responsibility. It is the only sane response. The UK has lost its collective mind, and those of us who oppose such moves here are not interested in platitudes. We are dead serious.
#23
But I, like most Hillary supporters, never believed that anyway. he has been thus far a better Prez, than I expected, or GIVEN his inexperience, I had any right to expect.
#25
Actually the whole left wing should make this a priority that this never happens or the body politic may determine them not to be adult enough to be members of said group.
Given the history of the past 80 years in the U.S. and in the Western World in general since Bastille Day, assuming that that hatred is there and presuming that true envy vs a simple amibtion to do better is the motivator the only prudent and intelligent thing to do.
Once bitten, and all that.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/03/2009 21:04 Comments ||
Top||
#30
individual responsibility is a private virtue, its not a policy position.
And that is where I call liberal bullshit. Liberals want to force government on you and take away individual choice. You get health care, you get "healthy" foods, you get cap and trade, you get social security. All of this whether you like it or not. It EXEMPLIFIES the liberal policy position. It is all about power.
The only thing I want from my government is to keep the ChiComs off my ass and my roads paved. Other than that I want them the hell out of my life. The first time a government stooge comes to my door and tells me I need to raise my kid a certain way, give so much to the global warming hoax, can't have certain books as they are "hate speech", can't do certain things as they are bad for my health, they will get a .40 between the eyes.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
